ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cross-border Health Services

Peter Bone: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the use made by patients resident in Wales of health services in England.

Wayne David: Wales Office Ministers have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues including health matters. The border between England and Wales does not represent a barrier to the provision of health care; rather it illustrates that, although there are distinct elements of the health service in both countries, we are still one nation in our commitment to universal access to health care for all our people.

Peter Bone: I thank the Minister for his response, but I am afraid I shall have to disagree with it. In Wales, 20 per cent. of patients—one fifth—must wait more than 14 weeks to be admitted to hospital, whereas in England the proportion is only 5 per cent. Why are Welsh patients treated as second-class citizens in the context of the national health service?

Wayne David: With all due respect, that is not the case. Waiting times on both sides of the border have fallen dramatically. Nine out of 10 patients in Wales are seen within four hours in accident and emergency departments, while 90 per cent. fewer in-patients and 99 per cent. fewer out-patients wait more than 22 weeks for appointments than was the case a year ago. In short, the position has improved dramatically, and there is great comparability between Wales and England.

Chris Ruane: Does my hon. Friend agree that his ability, the ability of other British Ministers and, indeed, the ability of Back Benchers to engage in any discussions on cross-border health issues would be dramatically reduced, or even ended, if the Conservatives' proposals for English votes on English issues went ahead?

Wayne David: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked a question that the Minister cannot possibly answer.

Lembit �pik: Many of my constituents must travel across the border to obtain health provision. The Welsh Affairs Committee's interim report stressed the need to border-proof that provision. How will the Minister, working with his Assembly colleagues, ensure that we do not have what feels like a second-class service, with different waiting times for Montgomeryshire constituents and English residents? I know that the Minister wants to put an end to that differentiation, but it is real and it is felt by my constituents.

Wayne David: Although the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred is an interim report, it is very well balanced and we look forward to fruitful discussion of it. In a broader context, discussions are taking place about the cross-border control protocol, and I am pleased to say that the recent discussions have been extremely productive. As I am sure he will appreciate, this is a complex matter, but I expect the improved protocol to be finalised before too long, and we hope that it will be implemented by the end of the year.

Madeleine Moon: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. I know that, having grown up in my constituency, he has all the abilities and capacities to do an excellent job in his new role.
	Is my hon. Friend aware that the NHS in England is carrying an unfair burden in relation to young people in the Parc young offenders' institution? Because the Assembly does not provide an inreach child and adolescent mental health service for the prison, those with mental health problems are required to go to England, where the English NHS gives them support. Will my hon. Friend meet me, as a matter of urgency, to help resolve the great injustice that is being done to young people in Wales?

Wayne David: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I do indeed come from her constituency.
	In general terms, I am aware of the situation that my hon. Friend has described. It is an important issue that requires the attention of both central Government here in London and the Welsh Assembly. I certainly give a commitment to meet my hon. Friend as soon as possible, as a matter of urgency, to discuss her concerns.

David Davies: Does the Minister realise that as well as waiting longer for treatment, Welsh patients cannot gain access to important drugs such as Tarceva which are available elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Does that not make a mockery of the national health service, which has become a regional health service under the Welsh Assembly? What does the Minister propose to do about it?

Wayne David: That is completely untrue. Let me emphasise that we do, very much, have a national health service for all our people. Of course I know full well that the hon. Gentleman is against devolution as a matter of principle, but the essence of devolution is allowing the devolved Administrations to respond to specific needs in specific parts of the country, which is what the Welsh Assembly Government have been doing very effectively. That does not mean, however, that we question the integrity of the national health service over the country as a whole. I believe that the two can operate together, as has been the case.

Hywel Williams: I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. No doubt he will be very busy, which will keep him out of mischief for a long time.
	As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to the hard work of the staff who have resolved many of these cross-border questions in the interim report. There will, of course, be a full report in due course. However, does he think it would be wise to open up the can of worms of the health costs to the Welsh Assembly Government and the people of Wales of people retiring from England to north Wales?

Wayne David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome, and I am sure that he is right to say that I will be extremely busy in my post. The issue he touches upon will undoubtedly require my attention. However, I should stress that the health service budget in Wales has increased dramatically over the past few years. That is true, too, for the current budget: the draft budget from the Welsh Assembly Government again proposes an increase that is far in excess of the rate of inflation. I therefore think that there is plenty of scope within that broad expansion of finance to address the issues the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.

Minimum Wage

Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on increases in the minimum wage.

Paul Murphy: I have regular discussions with the First Minister about all aspects of the Welsh economy, including the minimum wage, which is one of the most important employment rights, provided by this Government for all workers, both in Wales and the whole of the UK.

Betty Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware of the importance of tourism in my constituency. Does he share my view that the minimum wage makes a significant contribution to the development of responsible employment in the catering and tourist industries, and does he share my joy that it was this Labour Government who legislated on this matter, for which workers in this country have been fighting for 100 years?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I do share my hon. Friend's joy about the minimum wage, which, as she says, we introduced. As she also said, it particularly helps those in the tourism and catering industries, which are especially important businesses in her constituency and north Wales in general. Government plans to amend the regulations so that tips can no longer count towards the payment of the minimum wage are especially welcome, and are a credit to the trade unions and newspapers that campaigned for that. That is, of course, very important for those businesses and industries to which my hon. Friend refers.

Jennifer Willott: Increasing the minimum wage alone will do little to help the 11,000 newly unemployed people in Wales from this year, or the poor and elderly households who are struggling with rising food and fuel bills. Given that 12,000 construction jobs have been lost in Wales over the last year, which is more than for any other part of the UK, what measures will the Government put in place to create green jobs to tackle the problems of the loss of construction jobs and increasing fuel poverty in Wales?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me gently say again that I am not expecting a statement to be read out. Members are asking supplementary questions, and they should not be read out.  [Interruption.] Well, it looked to me as if the hon. Lady was reading.

Paul Murphy: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady that the minimum wage is of no importance. It now stands at 5.73 per hour, and it is important in ensuring that people in Wales get proper wages. She should also bear in mind that, not that long ago, people in the tourist and catering industries, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) referred, were being paid less than 2 an hour, so the minimum wage is important in our general economy.

2012 Olympics

Hywel Francis: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on Wales's contribution to the 2012 Olympics.

Wayne David: We continue to work with Cabinet colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government to maximise the potential benefits to Wales of the 2012 Olympic games. We are confident that the overall impact of the Olympic and Paralympic games will be enormously beneficial to Wales. I am also sure that we would all like to extend our congratulations to all the Welsh Olympic and Paralympic athletes on their wonderful success in Beijing.

Hywel Francis: I thank the Minister for his reply. I welcome him to his new posthis promotion is well deservedand may I say on behalf of the Welsh Affairs Committee that we look forward to working with him? I am sure he will agree that the best way to give a warm Welsh welcome to the London Olympics and Paralympics is to ensure that the physical access and facilities, particularly for competitors with disabilities and spectators with disabilities, are of the highest standard. Will he assure the House that he will raise this important matter of equality with the Welsh Assembly Government, the Minister for the Olympics and all the sporting bodies at the earliest opportunity, as we are about to have evidence sessions on it in the Welsh Affairs Committee?

Wayne David: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and, indeed, I look forward to working closely with him in his role as Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
	The Welsh Assembly Government are using the pre-games training camps agenda to offer accommodation providers best practice advice on disability access and to raise the profile of accessible transport. The Olympic and Paralympic villages are being designed from the outset as accessible and inclusive communities, complying with both the spirit and intent of all the relevant legislation. That is as far as competitors are concerned, but I can say that the same will also apply to spectators.

Stephen Crabb: If we want Wales to be taken more seriously as a potential partner in helping to deliver the 2012 project, does the Minister agree that it would help if the Football Association of Wales dropped what looks like insular, narrow-minded opposition to fielding a United Kingdom team at those games, despite FIFA's strong assurances that such a side would pose no threat at all to the independent Welsh national side in European and World cup competitions?

Wayne David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Prime Minister is keen for the country to have a football team at the 2012 games, but there is clearly some work to be done to reassure the football associations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will continue our dialogue in a positive way.

Overseas Bank Accounts

Elfyn Llwyd: What discussions he has had with the First Minister and ministerial colleagues on deposits made by Welsh local authorities in Icelandic bank accounts; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Selous: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on risks to holdings by Welsh public institutions in foreign-based banks.

Paul Murphy: I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not least during the regular meetings of the National Economic Council. I have also had discussions on the issue with the First Minister, the Welsh Assembly's Finance Minister and Local Government Minister and representatives of the Welsh Local Government Association. In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales attended the meeting last week between the Minister for Local Government, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the English and Welsh Local Government Associations to deal with this important matter.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that lengthy and perhaps unenlightening reply. He will realise, as a responsible Secretary of State, that the whole issue is not to be left at the feet of the National Assembly, since the investments were made under Treasury rules with Treasury encouragement, and the liquidity injection is not being Barnettised. It should therefore be dealt with in this place, and I ask him to fight Wales's corner on this issue.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I shall certainly do that, but it is a matter both for us in the United Kingdom Governmenthe is right to point out the Treasury's roleand for the Welsh Assembly Government, who are directly responsible for local government finance in Wales. I must tell him that the first issue is that we must try to get the money back from the Icelandic banks. As he knows, intense negotiations for that to happen are taking place.
	Of course, if there are financial problems in the nine local councils affected in Walesthere is nothing to say that there are problems at the momentthe Welsh Assembly Government assure me that they will step in to help. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that we are working very closely together on what is an important issue.
	As far as the Treasury guidance is concerned, it always stressed the balance between security and breadth of investment on the one hand and ordinary investment on the other.

Andrew Selous: There have been reports that at least three Welsh universities have more than 8 million at risk in Icelandic banks. Given the resource constraints that those universities already have, what impact does the Secretary of State think that this matter will have on higher education in Wales?

Paul Murphy: I hope that there will be none, and that the negotiations between the Treasury and the Icelandic Government and banks are successful, but of course we await the results of those. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bank of England has already given 100 million to the banks in Iceland to try to resolve the issue. The point is not unimportant, but as in the case of local authorities, we are not going to see a collapse of service. In the case of councils, there will not be immediate rises in the council tax for this reason, but we must obviously watch the matter carefully and do our best to get the money back.

Don Touhig: Iceland is the 10th most prosperous economy in the world and Wales should follow its examplethat was the advice given by nationalist Assembly Member Helen Mary Jones earlier this year. Unfortunately, the nationalists who run my council listened to her and put 15 million into Icelandic banks. Now unsure whether they are going to get the money back, they are having to raid balances for 11 million to deliver Labour's promise on equal pay. What advice has my right hon. Friend got for my constituents in those circumstances?

Paul Murphy: My advice is that they should vote Labour.

Albert Owen: Does the Secretary of State agree that local authorities in Wales and across the United Kingdom should make a greater commitment to the people's bankthe Post Officeby making large deposits of their money in it, securing the UK post office network, rather than risking it in the meltdown of the banks, which is the advice for independent small nations that Plaid Cymru wishes to follow?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I would encourage all Welsh depositors to consider the Post Office as an excellent place in which to place their money.

Roger Williams: The Auditor General for Wales has a duty to scrutinise the finances of public bodies. Does the Secretary of State have discussions with him and if so, what specific advice has he given on foreign investments to public bodies?

Paul Murphy: I have met the Auditor General for Wales, but that was before the issue of the Icelandic banks and local authorities arose. In discussions with my ministerial colleagues, I will look at the question of advice, but I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd): the advice generally from the Treasury and the Assembly is that the investment should be spread, and that security should be balanced with investment.

Cheryl Gillan: On behalf of the official Opposition, I issue a warm welcome to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) in his new role on the Front Bench, and I send our best wishes to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) in his new duties.
	Given the well-reported increasing risk attached to Icelandic financial institutions, why was no revised advice issued to Welsh public institutions earlier? In the light of the risks posed by further investments in foreign banks, can we be assured that new advice will now be issued regularly that takes these risks into account?

Paul Murphy: I was told by the Treasury that so far as its advice was concerned, it did not provide a list of individual banks or institutions in recent years and months, and it was up to individual authorities to judge what a prudent investment might or might not be, and of course, there would be professional advisers, as well. However, I repeat what I have said twice already: that that guidance had to be balanced between a breadth of investment and security, and every council has a responsibility so to do.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. In the joint statement from his Department with the Assembly Minister, the Minister said that there would be no immediate impact on services or council tax levels following this debacle, but as local authorities are now switching investment strategies toward low-risk, low-yield funds, their budgets are based on figures that cannot be achieved, and something has to give. When can we expect to see the council tax rise, assets sold or spending cut in Wales?

Paul Murphy: I obviously hope that none of that occurs, but the issue first, as I said, is to get the money back from Iceland. When that is done, it is for each individual authority in Wales that feels it has a difficulty to approach the Welsh Assembly Government, and then proper advice will be given to it. Of course, as the hon. Lady knows, nine authorities are involved to varying degrees. All of us have been told by the Local Government Association that there is no immediate threat to services or, indeed, to the level of council tax.

Cross-border Transport Links

Philip Hollobone: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department for Transport on cross-border transport links.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my predecessor have had regular discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and UK Government Ministers on cross-border transport links.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Minister agree that the upgrading of the A494 at Ewloe is essential to link north Wales effectively with the national motorway network? Will he urge the Welsh Assembly Government to prioritise a new scheme to replace the one abandoned in March?

Wayne David: It is important that discussions take place between the Government here in Westminster and the Welsh Assembly Government. Obviously, transport is a devolved matter, but that does not necessarily mean that it is simply the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government, full stop. It is important to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) about ensuring that there is the greatest possible voice here in Westminster, as well as in Cardiff, to secure the best deal for the people in Wales.

Nia Griffith: Will my hon. Friend undertake to have discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Department for Transport about extending the concessionary bus pass scheme so that it can be valid cross-border and pensioners in Wales can undertake bus journeys in England using the passes issued to them in Wales?

Wayne David: My hon. Friend makes a good point. When we talk about bus passes, it is important to remember that devolution is a partnership, and it is good to see that England is learning some lessons from what has happened in Wales because of the Welsh Assembly Government. It is early days in the introduction of a bus pass in England for senior citizens, but it is important that we encourage discussions to take place so that the two schemes have complementarity and all our citizens can benefit from the introduction of the schemes in both our countries.

Mark Williams: I congratulate the Minister on his new role. Has the issue of train services to mid-Wales been a feature of his early discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government? He will be aware that the programme for an hourly service from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth is slipping; we were anticipating that it would be in place in December. Will he urgently raise the issue of funding with both Network Rail and the Welsh Assembly Government?

Wayne David: The issue of rail services is important. There is always room for improvement, and we must have ongoing discussions to ensure that improvements take place. It is also important to recognise that meaningful improvements have been made to a number of services within Wales, and between Wales and England. For example, the Arriva Trains service is operating a new timetable involving longer routes and more stations in 2007-08, and it is better than the timetable in any previous year. Although there is room for improvement, significant improvement has been made in Wales.

David Jones: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), the Minister will be aware that the single consent regime to be introduced in the Planning Bill will not apply to highway projects in Wales. Consequently, there will be lengthy planning inquiries and cross-border routes will take much longer to upgrade. Can he say why the Welsh Assembly Government declined the opportunity to participate in the single consent regime? Does he agree that it is an enormous missed opportunity for Wales?

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, on which discussions have taken place. Those discussions must continue, so I would not jump to his conclusion that delays will be inherent in this regimewe must ensure that that is not the case. We must ensure the greatest co-ordination possible, and I assure him that I shall make it one of my priorities over the next three weeks to ensure that the situation is facilitated as far as is humanly possible.

Small Businesses (Cardiff, North)

Julie Morgan: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government Ministers on helping small businesses in Cardiff, North constituency.

Paul Murphy: I have regular discussions with Welsh Assembly Government Ministers on a range of topics. Numerous initiatives are in place in Wales to support small businesses, including in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Is he aware that Whitchurch in my constituency is one of the two places chosen by BT to pilot its super-fast broadband system? Does he agree that that will be a huge boost to local small businesses, giving increased access in a more effective way?

Paul Murphy: Yes, I do, and I welcome that news from my hon. Friend. It is one of only two pilots in the whole of the United Kingdom. On Friday, the Government will launch our digital inclusion action plan, which tries to meet the needs of 17 million people who are not actually connected to the internet. I welcome that announcement and the work of my hon. Friend.

Mark Pritchard: The Government say that they want to help small businesses, but many are unable to access Government contracts, so 10-day payment will be irrelevant to them. If the Government are serious about helping small businesses in Wales, the Secretary of State might advise Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to repay overpayment of corporation tax more quickly.

Paul Murphy: Certainly, prompt payment is important. I talked this morning to the Minister for Finance and Public Service Delivery in Cardiff, who assures me that all public bodies in Wales will now work towards the aim of paying their bills within 10 days. That includes local authorities and health authorities, as well as other public bodies.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Jim Sheridan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 October.

Gordon Brown: Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the family and friends of Trooper James Munday of the Household Cavalry Regiment, who was killed last week in Helmand province, Afghanistan. We owe him and all those who have lost their lives in conflict a huge debt of gratitude.
	I am also sure that the House will wish to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of Gayle Williams, who was killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan on Monday. She worked for the charity Serve Afghanistan, which offers education and training to people with disabilities. It was a barbaric act by the Taliban against someone devoted to improving the lives of ordinary Afghans. I believe that her family and the House should be extremely proud of the work that she did.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Jim Sheridan: Despite the best efforts of the Government during this economic and financial situation, many of our constituents are still worried about losing their jobs and the impact that that could have on their ability to pay their bills and mortgages, which could lead to them losing their homes. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that every option will be explored to ensure that any support that we can give these people will be given?

Gordon Brown: I can announce today new guidance [ Interruption. ] New guidance will be given to the judiciary to halt or adjourn court action on repossessions unless alternative options that help the home owner, including extending the terms of the mortgage, changing the mortgage type and deferring payment, have first been fully examined. We are determined to do everything that we can to help home owners avoid repossessions.
	The Governor of the Bank of England said last night that not since the first world war has the international banking system been so close to collapse. I agree with him. Having taken action on the banking system, we must now take action on the global financial recession, which is likely to cause recession in the US, France, Italy, Germany, Japan andbecause no country can insulate itself from itBritain too. That is why we are giving our undivided attention to helping families and businesses [ Interruption. ] I expect later this afternoon an announcement of an early summit of global leaders, which I shall attend on behalf of Britain.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Trooper James Munday who was killed in Afghanistan last week and to aid worker Gayle Williams who lost her life this week. The Prime Minister was right to pay such a fulsome tribute. Their deaths are a reminder of the sacrifices that our armed forces and humanitarian aid workers are making, not only on our behalf, but on behalf of people in Afghanistan. We pay tribute to their memory.
	In the first six months of the year, the Government borrowed more than 37 billion. At the end of a long boom, and just as the downturn is beginning, Britain has one of the biggest budget deficits in the industrialised world. Does the Prime Minister think that that is a mistake?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman said on the radio just a few days ago:
	Borrowing goes up. That's inevitable and you have to allow that to happen.
	Unfortunately, he said a few weeks ago that
	we have reached the limits of acceptable...borrowing.
	He must make up his mind which side he is on. Let me explain to him that the reason that we can afford to borrow is that we have low national debt. We have lower debt than America, France, Germany, Japan and Italy. It is right, when we are facing global financial problems, for the Government to increase economic activity in the economy by borrowing to do so. Which side is the right hon. Gentleman onthe side of what he said two weeks ago or the side of what he said a week ago?

David Cameron: Of course borrowing goes up in a downturn, but the Prime Minister's problem is that he racked it up to record levels before the downturn began. How can he possibly think that it is right to go into recession with such a high level of debt? Why cannot he just admit for once that he got it wrong? He keeps quoting the national debt figures, but let us look at what that does not include: billions of pounds spent on PFI, Network Rail and pension liabilities, even before we get to Northern Rock and Bradford  Bingley. He could not lecture the banks on borrowing because he was borrowing so much, and he cannot lecture them on transparency because he is hiding so much [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.  [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Touhig, behave yourself.

David Cameron: They do not like being told that they are being governed by a master of dodgy accounting [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak [Interruption.] Well, without interruption.

David Cameron: Half of the OECD went into the downturn with budget surpluses that they can use to cut taxes for families. Does the Prime Minister really have no regret at all that borrowing is so high just as the recession is beginning?

Gordon Brown: We cut the level of debt in national income. We cut it from the level that we inherited from the Conservative party. Is the right hon. Gentleman really now saying that to finance Network Rail we should close hospitals, we should close schools and we should close down the rest of the transport system? That is the implication of what he says. I repeat to the House that net debt in the UK, on the IMF figures published a few weeks ago, is 38 per cent. In France it is 55 per cent., Germany 56 per cent., Italy 101 per cent., Japan 94 per cent. and the USA higher at 46 per cent. We have the ability to borrow to take ourselves through these difficult times. May I just remind the Leader of the Opposition of what he said only a few days ago:
	People will want to see cross-party support rather than perhaps what we've seen in the US because we have to try and take public opinion with us for difficult decisions that may have to be taken.
	One thing one week; another thing the next week.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that he has cross-party support for the banking rescue, but he does not have cross-party support for the record debt that he has racked up in this country. As he is fond of quotations, perhaps he will try this one from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that he
	did not leave his successor as Chancellor with the fiscal room to cope with even a modest economic slowdown, let alone the problems we currently face.
	For years, the Prime Minister was telling us about the beauties of prudence with a purpose. Now he is telling us about the joys of borrowing without limit. Does that not show how ridiculous he now sounds? Let us have a look at another of his claims, which is particularly relevant on this day when the Governor of the Bank of England says that we are going into recession. Will he finally admit that he has not abolished boom and bust?

Gordon Brown: I have already said that I agree with the Governor of the Bank of England. As for the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises about debt, is he really saying that we should not have stepped in to save Northern Rock, that we should not have used public money to save Halifax Bank of Scotland and that we should not have used the public money that we have used to save the Royal Bank of Scotland? I believe that he needs to look again at what is happening in the global economy and its effect on every country round the world. If he were to look at what the cause of the problem was, he might be able to have a better idea of what the solution is. Let me remind the House of what he said:
	I always think Leaders of the Opposition have to be...careful not to...talk down the economy. You know there are some...strong fundamentals in the British economy and we should celebrate those and point them out.
	That is what he said, but that was a few weeks ago, before what he is saying today.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister asks me to recognise the causes of the problems that we are now in. Well, I can tell himwe are looking at them. Why can he not answer a direct question, just for once in his life? He has said dozens and dozens and dozens of times that he had ended boom and bust and rewritten the laws of the trade cycle. Now, with unemployment rising, growth stalling, repossessions up, businesses closing and the Governor of the Bank of England saying that we face recession, will the Prime Minister finally admit that he did not abolish boom and bust?

Gordon Brown: I have already answered about the Bank of England Governor and what he said.  [I nterruption.] This is a very important issue for the country. People must understandwhich the Opposition appear not tothe cause of the problems that we are dealing with.  [Interruption.] The Opposition like to think that this is a problem created in Britain and in the public sector. Everybody knows apart from the Opposition that this is a global problem that arose in the private sector as a result of irresponsible and undisclosed private sector lending. It has to be dealt with by recapitalising the banks and ensuring that they are funding small business and home owners.
	If the Opposition really are interested in home owners and small businesses, as they say they are, they should be supporting us as we try to get bank lending moving again and to build confidence in the financial system so that it can do the job that it is supposed to dothat is, give flows of money to households and businesses. If they cannot begin to understand the problem, they are going to be a million miles away from the solution.

David Cameron: Anyone listening to this exchange will know that the Prime Minister claimed the credit in the boom, so why will he not take the responsibility in the bust? Let me ask him one more timeit is a simple yes or no. Have you abolished boom and bust, yes or no?

Gordon Brown: We are not returning to the days of 15 per cent. interest rates. People are going to be tested over the next few days on the judgments that they make, and that applies to the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor as well. Unfortunately, on Northern Rock, they took the wrong judgment; on deregulating the mortgage market, they took the wrong judgment; on short selling of shares, they took the wrong judgment. The shadow Chancellor proposed a fuel duty escalator balancing mechanism that would have led to our having to increase today the duty on petrol by 3p. That is the judgment of the shadow Chancellor. With or without the Opposition's support, we will continue to do what is right for this country.

David Cameron: Does not the Prime Minister understand this: to the millions of people who have seen the value of their homes fall or their pensions decline, to the thousands of people losing their jobs, to the small businesses that are writing to all of us complaining about 15 per cent. interest rates, this is a bust? Let me ask him just one more time: why not admit, just for once in your life, that you have not ended boom and bust?

Gordon Brown: Is that not interestingnot a single policy idea. The right hon. Gentleman makes not one attempt to come together with all the parties in the interests of the nation, or to put forward a constructive solution to the problems. I fear that the reason why the Opposition cannot put forward constructive solutions is that they do not have a clue about the real problems in the economy.

Angela Smith: Last week, British Gas told one of my constituents that his gas bill would be going up by over 118 per cent., despite his account being in credit. Can my right hon. Friend commit himself to dealing with these outrageous price increasesespecially at a time when the price of oil is down to under $70 a barrel?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that now that the price of oil and the price of gas are coming down, we not only expect that to be reflected in petrol prices coming down, but want to see it reflected over time in consumers' gas and electricity bills. In the meantime, we have taken action to ensure that the social tariff is available at a lower rate for low-income families, and of course we have the winter allowance, which is 250 for over-60s and 400 this year for over-80s. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we will monitor the fall in oil and gas prices, so that people facing gas and electricity bills can get the real benefit.

Nicholas Clegg: Let me add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Trooper James Munday and aid worker Gayle Williams, who in their very different ways were serving this country and serving the people of Afghanistan.
	The public have seen that the Prime Minister delivered his multi-billion pound bail-out package for the bankers only once the banks were on the edge of collapse, so they are now asking themselves how bad it needs to get before he delivers a bail-out package for them. Yesterday we heard the energy companies saying that they will be handing down price cuts next year at the earliest, yet this winter four out of five single pensioners will be living in pensioner poverty, and the measures that he outlined in answer to the earlier question will be too late for them. What will he do now for them, this winter?

Gordon Brown: First, let me correct the right hon. Gentleman. We have been putting liquidity into the banking system for months. We have put 100 billion and more into the banking system to ensure that our banks can continue to be in existence. The recapitalisation of the banks was to strengthen them, so that they could face all sorts of difficulties ahead, and at the same time restart lending. So I have to correct him on that; he is wrong on that issue.
	On helping pensioners this winter, the right hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that the pension is more than 30 a week, but let me point out to him that we are helping pensioners this winter by the rise in the winter allowance that will come to people very soon, by the help that we are giving with the social tariff, which also helps many pensioners, by encouraging pensioners to use the direct debit system to keep their bills low, and by all the measures that we are taking on insulation and central heating to give pensioners the best chance of saving energy or saving costs from the use of energy. We are trying to do all these things; I hope that we will have all-party support for them.

Nicholas Clegg: I asked the Prime Minister about fuel poverty and he gave me a wholly different answer. The answer shows that this Prime Minister [Interruption.] He is all at sea [Interruption.]if not in a luxury yacht, like some prominent members of the Opposition.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the right hon. Gentleman to be heard.  [Interruption.] Order.

Nicholas Clegg: Let me make a specific suggestion about something that the Prime Minister could do now. At the moment, we all pay more for the energy that we use firstour early energy unitsand less for the rest. That hits families on low and middle incomes, who use less energy, very hard indeed. Will he commit today to reversing that unfair systemturning it on its head so that those who use less energy pay lower prices? It makes environmental sense, it makes common sense and it is something that he could do now, to help people this winter. Will he do thatyes or no?

Gordon Brown: I am happy to look at any constructive suggestion that has been put about how we can help people through these difficult winter months. We have also raised the payment that would be paid to people if there should be severe weather during these months. But I think the right hon. Gentleman's protestations about what ought to be done would be better heard if he had not committed his party at his conference to 20 billion-worth of cuts in public expenditure.

Fabian Hamilton: May I return to the issue of high energy prices? Now that the price of oil has halved, can my right hon. Friend offer any comfort to my Leeds, North-East constituents, who are faced with hugely inflated energy costs, as my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) just said? We are told that these prices are linked to the price of oil, but will he take further measures to help pensioners and fuel-poor families, who are faced with these massive increases, when the energy companies were so quick to raise their prices but rather slower to bring them down again?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that as the price of oil and gas comes down there should be the benefit that gas and electricity bills become lower. We took action in September with 1 billion in an energy package. Lower-income households600,000 peopleare benefiting from lower social tariffs, and prices will not rise at all this winter for almost half a million of the most needy households. We will continue to look at what can be done, but what we will not do, whether for petrol or for gas and electricity bills, is to take the advice of the official Opposition, because their fuel duty stabiliser would mean that we would have to increase the tax on petrol by 3p a litre.

John Whittingdale: Will the Prime Minister consider the plight of my 70-year-old constituent who invested in commercial offices to help to provide for his retirement but is unable to let or sell them, with the result that he has to pay business rates of 500 a month out of his total pension of 700 a month? Given the property slump, will the Government consider reinstating empty property relief, especially for people on low incomes such as my constituent?

Gordon Brown: We look at everything that we can do to help, but I should point out that no rates are paid for the first three months for office property, and for the first six months for industrial property.

Lynda Waltho: Men and women alike are concerned about the economy, the future and the welfare of their families. Will my right hon. Friend, whatever the situation, promise the women of this country that he will not stoop so low as to hire a public relations firm to get inside our pretty little heads?

Gordon Brown: While the Opposition are interested in public relations, we are interested in getting the policy right, and we would like to have all-party support.

Andrew George: If the Prime Minister really plans to build and spend his way out of the looming recession, will he assure the House that he will ensure that those who have sacrificed the most, such as working families who struggle and pay their taxessome of which are used to bail out those who have accrued the most, yet often avoid paying theirslike thousands of families in my area who have no housing or very poor housing, receive reward and support as he builds and spends?

Gordon Brown: Twenty-two million people are receiving a tax cut of 120, which is being paid to them over the next few months. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about home owners and housing. We will deliver 50,000 homes a year for social rent and increase housing supply in the social sector.

Sally Keeble: I very much welcome the Government's commitment to continued investment in public services during these difficult times, as is shown by today's announcement of the 100th new NHS hospital. May I ask for Northampton to be 101st on that list with a commitment to a new district general hospital, which is much needed?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful for the chance to welcome the fact that the Government are announcing today the opening of St. Helens hospital, which is the 100th hospital under our 10-year hospital building scheme. We launched the hospital building programme to replace and modernise the NHS. In 1997, half of it dated from before 1948 and was not fit for purpose in a modern NHS. This is the biggest hospital building programme in history, and even if there is opposition from the Conservative party, we are determined to continue to build hospitals and schools.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Prime Minister assist ex-servicemen in prison? According to the National Association of Probation Officers, there are 8,500 ex-servicemen in prison, which represents about 10 per cent. of the entire prison population. Will he speak to his ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence so that they liaise to determine the extent of the problem and put proper mechanisms in place to deal with returnees from conflict zones before they commit offences?

Gordon Brown: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and we are looking at the matter. A National Audit Office report commissioned last year showed that the majority of those who leave the services make a successful return to civilian life, and 94 per cent. find work in six months, but a small minority can face severe difficulties. The Ministry of Defence provides a wide range of support; our package of specialist mental health care is one example. The MOD's prison inreach initiative gives veterans in prison access to a range of support services. We are working together with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Justice on the issue to get up-to-date, authoritative data and a survey. We will then see what we can do to help people who have helped and served our country; it is our duty to assist them when they are civilians.

Graham Stringer: MPs of all parties are calling for a fair and unbiased question in the referendum on the congestion charge in Greater Manchester. What we are getting is a partial, biased question that does not even mention the congestion charge. Given the current economic circumstances, would it not be better if the unnecessary congestion charge and the divisive referendum were cancelled, and we brought forward to an earlier date investment in the tram system in Greater Manchester?

Gordon Brown: I know that there are strong views about the issue, but let me just say that the question in the referendum had to be approved legally, and that is what actually happened.

Alan Reid: The Vestas factory just outside Campbeltown that produces towers for wind farms is threatened with closure, which would mean the loss of over 90 jobs. Given that the Government's 2020 renewables targets require a tenfold increase in renewable energy generation, and given the absolutely devastating effect that the loss of all those jobs would have on a small community such as Campbeltown, will the Prime Minister intervene and do all that he can to save the jobs at the Campbeltown factory?

Gordon Brown: I am aware of the case. The factory announced that it would cease production in Machrihanish, near Campbeltown. It was Scotland's only wind turbine tower factory. The company is investing in another plant on the Isle of Wight, but the problem is due to the factory losing money. I understand that the Scottish Administration's Highlands and Islands Enterprise met the company and those who are trying to find other potential occupants of the site. I will endeavour to find out what I can do to help in this instance.

Karen Buck: While crime has fallen overall, the whole House knows that too many children and young people have fallen victim to gun and knife crime in recent years. Does my right hon. Friend know that evidence indicates that some young people are choosing to carry weapons because the high profile of youth crime leads them to believe that everyone else is doing so? They therefore think that they must carry them for protection. What concrete steps can the Government take to break that spiral of fear in our schools and on our streets?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She has taken a very big interest in how we can get knife crime off the streets of London, and away from the major hotspots at which knife crime is concentrated. We have undertaken more stops and searches over the summer months. Since July, there have been 77,000 searches, and 2,192 knives have been seized in those areas. Only 2 to 3 per cent. of young people stopped had a weapon, but it is important that we change the culture so that it is wholly unacceptable to carry a knife. We have introduced strong cautions, and we have said that prosecution will result from carrying a knife. We are taking more action on prevention, and are ensuring more education in schools and safer schools. Wands are used and searches are done on young people. We have involved the England football team and others who can influence young people as role models.
	I believe that we are talking about not just enforcement, punishment and prevention, but about changing the whole culture, so that it becomes as unacceptable to carry a knife as it is to carry a gunas unacceptable as bullying now is in schools or as racism is in sport. We should all, on a cross-party basis, support the culture change that so many people who have been affected by knife crime are trying to bring about.

Adrian Sanders: For over a decade, the Government have given the people of the south-west warm words about their water charges, which are the highest in the country. Ofwat has just published a prediction of further rises to water and sewerage costs by 2016. Those rises are not only above the inflation rate, but above the average for all water companies. When will the people of the south-west get action, rather than sympathetic words?

Gordon Brown: I have met Members of Parliament from the area to talk about the issues and to see what could be done, but I have to say to them, after 10 years of Labour Government, that the south-west enjoys higher employment, higher standards of living and better public services as a result of a Labour Government.

Dennis Skinner: Will the Prime Minister give us a rock-solid assurance that whatever he does to clear the debts of the nation's finances, he will never, ever, meet a Russian billionaire to try and cadge the money? We will leave that to the sleazy Tory party.

Gordon Brown: This is a very serious matter indeed, and I hope that it is investigated by the authorities.

Philip Dunne: Ten years ago, the Government issued a presumption against the closure of rural schools. Since then, funding has been diverted away from rural areas to urban areas. What action is the Prime Minister going to take to ensure fair funding for rural areas such as Shropshire so that schools such as Lydbury North in my constituency can stay open?

Gordon Brown: I am in favour of more funding for schools around the country and I am in favour of more funding for schools in rural areas, as in urban areas, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must make a prior decision: does he support extra investment in schools and education, as we do, or does he oppose the extra investment, as his own party has done?

Small Businesses

Ian Pearson: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall now make a statement on the latest Government measures to help small businesses. The Government understand that many small firms are having real difficulties as a result of the credit crunch and worldwide economic slowdown. Those companies are critical to our long-term economic success. More than 99 per cent. of UK businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises. They contribute as much as large businesses to UK output, and nearly 60 per cent. of private sector jobs.
	We have always made getting the business environment right for SMEs a priority, and since 1997, 1 million more small businesses have been created. UK SMEs employ 1.5 million more people; they are more productive and more innovative, and they survive longer. Most recently, our enterprise strategy set out our renewed vision to make the UK the world's most enterprising economy and the best place to grow and start a business. We increased the small firms loan guarantee lending allocations by 20 per cent. for 2008, boosted enterprise programmes and committed to a new approach that avoids placing unnecessary regulatory burdens on smaller firms.
	These tough times have only made us more determined to help SMEs. We need to be practical and innovative; above all, we need to ensure that what we do makes a real difference. We are meeting business organisations and businesses across the country to discuss the problems that they are facing, such as cash flow, access to finance and higher bank charges and costs, and to ensure that their views are reflected in Government action.
	Our first priority has been restoring financial stability. Without a strong financial system, small businesses cannot access the credit that they need, home owners struggle with their mortgages, and trade in the high street slows down. But as the impact of the global financial squeeze hits small businesses further, the Government believe that it is not enough for us to focus on financial stability alone. So, building on the measures that we have already brought forward, the Government announced yesterday further action, with immediate effect, to help SMEs through these tougher times.
	For SMEs, cash dominates: cash inprompt paymentand cash out, to their work force, for inputs and to the Revenue. Over the past year, the time that organisations take to pay their bills to suppliers has increased, intensifying the cash-flow pressures of many businesses. The Government are determined to do everything they can to help. The Government will aim to pay their suppliers as soon as possible, and within 10 days at the latest. That will bring forward billions of pounds-worth of payments, on top of the majority of payments already made within 10 days. The regional development agencies, which spend around 750 million annually with suppliers, have also committed to that. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government wrote to the Local Government Association, and the chief executive of the national health service wrote to NHS trusts, asking those public bodies to review their payment performance and to follow the Government's lead.
	I recognise the essential role that the approach of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to business tax compliance can play in managing the economic downturn. HMRC already has a policy of flexibility in dealing with struggling businesses, and I know that the Treasury will continue to impress upon it the importance of implementing and publicising that policy in the current climate. We are also working with the Institute of Credit Management and all leading finance and business organisations to promote prompt payment and ensure that businesses have the best advice and guidance on managing cash flow.
	The Government's measures of financial support to the banking industry are designed to stabilise UK banks and support the long-term strength of the economy, which helps small businesses. As part of the recapitalisation package, Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS and Lloyds TSB committed to
	maintain the availability and active marketing of competitively priced lending to SMEs at a level at least equivalent to that of 2007.
	Small businesses must know that the banks are open for business. RBS, HBOS and Lloyds TSB make up 50 per cent. of small business lending, but given that they operate in a competitive environment, we can expect other banks to follow suit. The Government will monitor how recapitalised banks are delivering their commitment on SME lending. We will ask the banks how they will achieve that, including the availability of capital and liquidity allocated for small businesses, marketing plans, and their principles for SME lending, from head office to branch level.
	We want to see banks taking appropriate risk assessments on SME lendingbeing responsible but not unduly risk-averse, and not passing on unreasonable costs. The Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will be meeting all the banks and building societies tomorrow to discuss those issues, and what small businesses can expect from them.
	The Government have also been brokering contact between UK banks and the European Investment Bank. The four largest UK banks have now signalled their initial interest in negotiating loans totalling about 1 billion from the EIB to lend to UK SMEs. I hope that we will be able to make rapid progress on that for small businesses.
	It is critical at this difficult time that businesses have access to support and advice that helps them to survive now and succeed in the future. Business Link advisers will provide a free health check for every small business, whatever its size, sector or location, and other advice on how to adapt to changing economic conditions and be ready for the economic upturn.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills yesterday announced that small businesses are the focus of 350 million of Government funds to help them get through the tougher economic climate by building the skills and expertise of their workers. The Government are making improvements to Train to Gain that will deliver advice and funding for training, with the minimum bureaucracy and delay. For the first time, training at level 2 will be free for all SME employees regardless of whether they already have qualifications at that level, and there will be free bite-size courses in business-critical areas, including business improvement techniques and customer service, to raise productivity. Management and leadership training will also be opened up to the smallest employers so that it is now available to employers with five to 250 employees.
	Small businesses drive our economy forward, and during this global economic downturn, the Government are determined to give the millions of people who run and work for SMEs the chance to maintain their livelihood and prepare for better times in the future. That is why we have brought forward these measures, and we will continue to do all we can through the work of the National Economic Council to look for and implement solutions that help SMEs. I commend this statement to the House.

Alan Duncan: The Minister's statement is an unprecedented occasion, representing an unacceptable mixture of farce and contempt. The Department has no one of Cabinet rank in this House, so instead, a Minister has just read out a statement that the real Secretary of State will deliver in another place in three hours' time.
	Last week the Leader of the House said that there would be no statement delivered today, but then today's announcements were made first in a Select Committee, then in a press release sent out by the Department yesterday lunchtime, and then in a press conference attended by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. If the real Secretary of State says something in the House of Lords that the Minister has not said here, will we be entitled to a further statement tomorrow?
	The Government have been slow to cotton on to the fact that the turmoil witnessed over the past few months in financial markets is now causing the deepest imaginable pain for businesses both big and small throughout the country. Is there not a danger that even the most imaginative measures to assist business cash flow will simply be too small and puny to cope with the scale of the fallout caused by a decade of Government mismanagement and financial hubris?
	We have been ahead of the Government in sounding the alarm about the debt that has been built up, the taxes that have been raised and the irresponsible financial practices at the heart of Government. We want to see some immediate practical assistance for small businesses, which are having to deal with serious cash-flow problems: prompt payment from central and local government, deferral of VAT, a cut in national insurance, a reduction in corporation tax for small business, and more promotion of the small business rate relief, to which many are entitled but for which not all apply.
	Will the Minister therefore confirm that the 350 million that was announced yesterday, and repeated today, to help SMEs train staff is, in fact, just a reheat of old money and a recycling of old schemes? How, indeed, can the Government possibly monitor prompt payment by Government and Government agencies, when they have admitted in a parliamentary answer that they never even record that information?
	On what basis can the Minister defend the assertion made by the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills on the Today programme, and repeated today, that bank lending will continue at 2007 levels? How will the Minister measure that? Is it not the case that all over the country, contrary to the Government's assertions, overdraft facilities are being viciously called in by the banks, to the severe detriment of thousands of businesses? Is it not blatantly evident that banks are not continuing to lend as the Government say they are and must, but are in fact pulling the rug from under many perfectly good firms?
	To whom can business turn for a reprieve, when a bank declares that it will withdraw an overdraft facility or suddenly call in guarantees? What is the Minister's estimate of the number of businesses that will go to the wall in the coming year? Does he agree with some independent economic experts that unemployment will shoot through the 3 million mark by the end of next year? Is it not the case that although the base rate is falling, actual borrowing costs are rising through 15 per cent.?
	The Minister mentioned the small firms loan guarantee scheme, but what plans do the Government have to extend this very narrow scheme to help businesses more widely? How, indeed, can they claim that regional development agencies will make a difference when the Government have just raided their budget to prop up the housing market?
	Does the Minister share my analysis that there is growing anger that a Prime Minister who has spent the last years declaring that he has abolished boom and bust, while in fact storing up all the trouble that is now hitting us hard, is massively to blame for mortgaging this country just as bankers have mortgaged their banks? While demanding praise for building what he has not yet even paid for, he has delivered only the illusion of prosperity, behind which will now follow massive bills for future generations to pay. Having built the country on a mountain of debt, the Labour Government are now as bankrupt as the economy that they have created. Does that not prove the abiding truth of post-war British politicsthat Labour Governments always run out of money?

Ian Pearson: I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his courteous welcome to me at the Dispatch Box.
	What we are doing as a Government is concentrating on the real work of helping small businesses through difficult economic times. I would have liked to think that he would welcome the package of measures that we are announcing today. He mentioned small business rate relief, so may I remind him that the Opposition voted against the Bill introducing it?
	Let me address the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed, first about the 350 million announced by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. That focuses on SMEs as a top priority and relaxes the rules on spending on training to gain. I should have thought that that would be widely welcomed at a time when companies are thinking about shedding staff and about whether to move to short-time working. I should have thought that the ability to say, You can work four days a week and you can train for one, so you will have additional skills, would be warmly welcomed during these difficult economic times. I am surprised that the Opposition do not seem to accept that.
	On the subject of prompt payment, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that Government Departments report annually on their progress in meeting payment targets. Yes, it is an ambitious target that Departments pay within 10 daysalthough I think that the majority of payments are already made within 10 days. If we can get this right, it could be a big boost to help small companies, but we are paying with taxpayers' money and we need to make sure, when we are safeguarding the public purse, that the goods and services have been delivered and the invoice is right. We will then do everything we can to ensure that it is paid within 10 days.
	Let me repeat the point about bank lending. We are not saying that there should be lending at 2007 levels; we are saying that the availability of that funding should be at 2007 levels, and that we expect banks to market actively and to offer competitively priced products to the SME sector.
	There is clearly an issue in relation to rates. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence out there suggesting that some banks are starting to look again at their lending practices and are insisting on higher margins. Although we cannot interfere in individual lending decisions and it would be wrong to do so, it is right that we should expect banks to be clear about their lending principles. That will be one of the subjects for discussion when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Chancellor meet the banks tomorrow.
	There was an accusation from the Opposition that we have been too slow in taking action. In March we announced that we would increase the small firms loan guarantee scheme by 20 per cent., because we understood that companies were going through difficult times and would need extra support. We are making such decisions. I heard the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) argue last night in the debate that there should be lower spending. I do not see how, in our current difficult economic times, low spending will help the SMEs that he professes to want to support. That is bad economics, and he should be ashamed of himself.

David Clelland: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering bringing forward capital works in order to stimulate the economy in the face of the economic downturn. Is the Minister aware that improvements to the major road network and local rail services in the north-east, which are currently outside the scope of regional funding allocations, would be of major benefit to small businesses in the north-east, which have been calling for such improvements for some time? Will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity that the proposal presents for helping small businesses in the north-east of England?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is right to point out that a number of worthwhile infrastructure projects could be brought forward to provide strong economic benefits while at the same time helping small businesses during difficult economic times. We are actively looking at such possibilities. Our policy contrasts very sharply indeed with that of Conservative Members, who do not want to borrow, think we are wrong and think we should be spending less. That would damage our economy, so it is not the right or responsible thing to do.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for having sent me a copy of his statement in advancealthough there is not much new in it. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of small businesses, which are the bedrock of commerce in many parts of the country and vital for our long-term economic growth. The key issue facing small businesses is cash flow and, more particularly, the availability of bank finance. Will he explain how the Government will ensure that the banks negotiating for refinancing will actually deliver on the sentiment? The sentiment in favour of maintaining availability is fine and laudable, but how will the Government ensure that that is what happens? May I suggest that a memorandum of understanding be agreed between the Government and the banks, which specifically deals with the question of rates, fees and availability? That should be agreed in principle in advance.
	On payments to small companies, I welcome the move to oblige public sector bodies to pay up quickly, and within 10 days, if possible. Again, however, how will the Minister ensure that that actually happens, given that most of those bodies have computerised payment systems that operate on a monthly basis?
	How will the Minister ensure that HMRC will be more flexible, particularly when the work force change programme is taking 10,000 skilled people out of HMRC and replacing them with a call centre operation? And what can he do to ensure that private companies, too, pay more quickly? Will he talk to the CBI about how it could talk to its members about that?
	The Minister mentioned the small firms loan guarantee scheme. Is he aware that its annual report, published in August this year, noted a further decline in the number of loans givennotwithstanding the new money. Total loans now stand at 270 million, but default rates are about 13 per cent., and the biggest complaint from small businesses is about the administrative burden of getting into the scheme. The best way to make that scheme work is to improve the administration, so what action is the Minister taking to get the administration right?

Ian Pearson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, particularly his welcome for the Government's attempt to ensure prompt payments. Yes, there are administrative difficulties in carrying out some of these measures, but there is a clear commitment from the top to do that. We need to ensure that the system continues to deliver. As I said, a significant majority of payments are already being made within 10 days, but we need to consider how to raise that performance; it is a question of managing for better performance. Yes, we also want to encourage large private companies to pay their suppliers more promptly, and I have no doubt that we will want to discuss the matter with them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about HMRC. We have said that we want it to look into how it can operate more flexibly during these difficult economic times, and I have no reason to believe other than that it will want to do just that.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about another matter that I mentioned in my statementabout how we can reach agreements with the individual banks that are taking advantage of the recapitalisation fund to ensure that they continue to lend to small businesses. We do want to monitor that closely; we will be in discussion with the banks about it and we have been very clear that we want them to continue marketing actively. We want to talk to them about ensuring that they make competitive rates available. As I said, it is not for the Government to make individual lending decisions, but we need to understand the principles by which they operate. That is the right thing to do.
	Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the small firms loan guarantee scheme. We always want to see whether we can make that administratively simpler, so I shall take his comments into account. We also want to ensure that the scheme is actively marketed to SMEs by the banks, which have not always done as much as they should have. I hope that we will see significant change over the coming months.

David Hamilton: On Monday, I met the chamber of commerce chief executive, who is also chief executive of the enterprise trust, and it became apparent to us that although we wanted to achieve things through HMRC, and, indeed, the Treasury, it is the Scottish Administration who have the power. Will the Minister agree to meet me, and a number of other Scottish MPs, to discuss how we can overcome that problem, because it is imperative that the changes are implemented in Scotland as quickly as possible?

Ian Pearson: As the House will be aware, enterprise policy is a devolved matter, so today's statement applies only to England. However, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further, because supporting small businesses is important to this Government, wherever those small businesses are located.

Peter Luff: I intend no criticism of the Minister, who is an able and decent man, when I say that he has said nothing to this House today that his noble Friend the Secretary of State did not tell the Select Committee that I chair at yesterday's sitting. That raises important questions about the accountability of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to this House, but those are questions for another day.
	Let me press the Minister on one issue that we also raised with the Secretary of State yesterdaythe question of business rates, particularly void rates. Small businesses face a huge burden when they cannot let property in the current commercial downturn. That urgently needs to be relieved, and the Government should also drop their plans for business rate supplements, which pose another huge challenge to the cash flow and finances of businesses in very difficult times.

Ian Pearson: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's points. As Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, he speaks with considerable experience. I believe that the package is an important one, which will be welcomed by business because it offers practical measures that will make a difference, but it should not be seen as the last word on Government support. It builds on the already impressive programme of business support that we, as a Government, have provided. Over the coming months, we will be looking to see what more we can do to help businesses through these very difficult economic times.

Eddie McGrady: I welcome the Minister's statement and his commitment to SMEs, on which the economy and community of Northern Ireland are very dependent. On the policy of flexibility for HMRC, will he give further indication of what that means, so that we can interpret it on the ground and help our constituents to avail themselves of that opportunity?
	I endorse the point in the previous question about the rates on vacant properties. Apart from the spectre of vacancies, we now have genuine vacancies brought about by the economic recession. As the Minister is probably aware, transport, gas and electricity costs in Northern Ireland are far above the UK average, so will he provide some help through equalisation or rationalisation?
	Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister, even though he has no jurisdiction in the matter, whether he is aware that the failure of the Executive to meet in Northern Ireland has frustrated the issue of Government contracts for public utilities and public works, so could either he, if he has personal knowledge, or, if not, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, encourage the Executive

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's questions, and I am, as he knows, very fond of Northern Ireland. Perhaps one day, however, I will get just one supplementary question from him.

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend raises a number of points, most of which are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Administration and their Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I cannot reply to those questions, but in response to his question about his desire for HMRC to show more flexibility, I can be pretty clear. We do not want HMRC to be first in the queue to put companies into bankruptcy in order to get their money. We want it to be flexible, to recognise companies that are in difficulty and to discuss issues with them on a case-by-case basisand I hope that that is what HMRC will do.

Brian Binley: The Minister says that the Government are keen to do all that they can to help small business, yet this year they are increasing capital gains tax by 300 million and small business corporation tax by 370 million, and charging 900 million on empty properties. Will the Minister now tell us that those increases will not be implemented and that he will change the rating arrangements to provide reliefor are his words fine, but not very meaningful?

Ian Pearson: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, in my view, the measures we have announced can help to make a real difference and are attuned to the difficult times that we face. I am sure he will welcome the entrepreneurs' relief on the first 1 million of capital gains, and also the effective tax rate of 17.2 per cent. on a 10 million capital gain. I do not think that 17.2 per cent. on a 10 million capital gain is an unreasonable price to pay.

Paddy Tipping: Small businesses are vital to the health of the rural economy. Will the Minister continue to work to ensure that high-quality broadband services are available even in the least populated areas?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of rural areas, and he is right to raise the issue of broadband connectivity. We want to ensure that broadband is available in rural as well as in urban areas, and we have been very good at achieving the targets that we have set for broadband access, but there is more that we can do. I should be more than happy to discuss the issues with my hon. Friend, and also to put him in touch with Lord Carter, who has direct responsibility for them.

Adam Price: The Minister says that he expects the rest of the banking sector to follow the lead of the recapitalised banksHBOS and the restin reopening lines of credit. I wish that I shared his faith in market mechanisms after all that has happened over the past few weeks. Surely a better approach would be to insist that all banksnot just those that participated in the recapitalisation scheme, but those that availed themselves of the 250 billion of Government guarantee for new debtagreed to lend responsibly to small businesses.

Ian Pearson: We all want to see responsible lending, but, as I said earlier, the banks that have taken advantage of the recapitalisation currently constitute more than 50 per cent. of the market. There is still a competitive market out there when it comes to loan finance, and our priority must be to ensure that competitive products are available to SMEs.
	I do not share the hon. Gentleman's fear that banks that do not take advantage of the recapitalisation scheme will still not want to lend to good SMEs. What we must do is ensure that the many excellent companies that we have in the United Kingdom still have access to finance when they require it, on reasonable and acceptable terms, so that they can invest for the future.

Harry Cohen: The Prime Minister has said that, at the European summit, he put pressure on the European Investment Bank to release millions of pounds for small businesses in this country. How will that money filter through to small businesses in, for example, Leyton and Wanstead?

Ian Pearson: As I said earlier, the banks have expressed an initial interest in making 1 billion available to small and medium-sized businesses through the European Investment Bank. That has not yet been completely sorted out, but it is potentially a significant package which, if we can get it right, will benefit companies in areas all over the country, including my hon. Friend's constituency.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister has outlined a number of measures which we hope will go some small way towards assisting small businesses, although we must wait to assess their efficacy. He said that banks should not pass on unreasonable costs. Given the recapitalisation that was mentioned a few moments ago, what steps will the Government take to ensure that small businesses do not face the unreasonably high costs that have faced them heretofore?

Ian Pearson: I also said earlier that conditions had been applied to the banks involved in the recapitalisation scheme in regard to lending to small businesses, and also in regard to the provision of mortgages. We will continue to engage in a dialogue with the banks and monitor their actions, to ensure that companies are given fair access to loans at competitive prices.

Nigel Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend avoid returning to the woeful Conservative record on small businesses, which experienced a doubling of VAT, the imposition of a tax of more than 30 per cent., and a 25 per cent. interest rate which crippled them? Will he also ensure that the banks' stampede to withdraw credit facilities and claw back their loans is halted, that the process is properly monitored, and that, at the appropriate time, the effectiveness of that action is reported to the House?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Opposition have form in this regard. The fact that they have wanted greater financial deregulation, the fact that they did not support us on Northern Rock and Bradford  Bingley, and the fact that they seem to have completely lost faith with the City of London give great cause for concern about whether they are acting as a responsible Opposition.
	As I said earlier, during this difficult economic time we want to ensure that banks lend responsibly, but also to ensure that they do not profiteer and try to restore their balance sheets at the expense of good British businesses. That is something that not just the Government but, I am sure, the whole business community will want to watch very closely.

John Baron: May I return the Minister to the issue of small business rate relief? Many businesses across south Essex are eligible for the relief, but do not access it because of the paperwork and bureaucracy involved. Why will the Government not make it automatic?

Ian Pearson: I understand that there is a two-page form for the claiming of small business rate relief, and that it needs to be filled up only once every five years. It has been suggested that it might be possible to automate the relief, and we will consider that possibility, but I do not think it is as difficult to apply for it at present as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest.

Anne Snelgrove: Last year, Swindon and Bristol jointly topped the league for the biggest growth in the number of small businesses. I welcome the announcement of practical measures to help our SMEs in the south-west, but what can my hon. Friend do to encourage more local councils to put business their way, and to persuade councils to follow central Government's lead in respect of payment within 10 days?

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend has made some good points. We certainly want to encourage local authorities to pay promptly, and a number of them already do. During these difficult times, however, we should consider how we can use public money most effectively to support our small businesses. As my hon. Friend says, Swindon and Bristol contain many very successful small businesses, and over the years I have visited a number of them.

Robert Wilson: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new post. Does he agree that SMEs need proper and detailed macro-economic as well as micro-economic information? Will he confirm two facts: first, that we are now entering a recession, and secondly that we have not seen an end to boom and bust in the economic cycle?

Ian Pearson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. As somebody who used to run a small business, I always wanted to understand the global competitive environment, so what he says about SMEs is right. The Government do not make it their practice to provide a running commentary on the state of the economy, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, Government forecasts will be updated in the pre-Budget report.

David Kidney: The Government cannot make banks lend money to small businesses under the small firms loan guarantee, but given worrying reports of banks refusing to take any part in the scheme at the present time, can the Economic Secretary, at least for the duration of this serious global economic downturn, make the word guarantee refer to access to capital for those small businesses that need it?

Ian Pearson: It is important that we have a properly effective small firms loan guarantee scheme that is actively marketed. The Government will want to make sure of that, so I hope I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.

Robert Smith: It is all too timely that we are recognising the real consequences for real people of this recession, with the news yesterday of the proposed closure of a paper mill in Inverurie, with the loss of 400 jobs. The recession will, therefore, hurt real people in the economy. To return to the Economic Secretary's announcement about the HMRC and its policy to adopt an understanding approach to business and the collection of tax, I understand that it is also under an incentive to maximise its revenue collection. Will the Minister therefore place in the Library the revised guidance that will go out to the HMRC putting into effect what he has announced in his statement?

Ian Pearson: I cannot guarantee to do that at this point in time, but let me take that request away and see whether it is possible to do so. The redundancies in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are regrettable, and they reinforce that we are facing difficult times and that we need a Government who are active and decisive in taking practical measures that will help businesses.

Alison Seabeck: I welcome the package my hon. Friend has announced, but he will be aware that many small businesses have earmarked for their January 2009 tax bill money that is currently invested in Icelandic banks. While they may get some of that money back under the guarantee scheme, that could take months. Is there any scope for the HMRC to defer payments in the same way as happened when the foot and mouth crisis hit us?

Ian Pearson: The situation involving the Icelandic banks is complicated, and people's circumstances depend on whether they are creditors in an Icelandic branch that is regulated by the Icelandic authorities or in a subsidiary of an Icelandic bank that is regulated through the Financial Services Authority. I hope that we can make very quick progress in the administration of the Icelandic banks' subsidiaries in the United Kingdom. We have also been strongly pressing the Icelandic authorities for a quick and fair administration in Iceland, so I hope we can give companies with investments in those banks some early reassurancealthough I do not know the scale of the problem. We will continue to do all that we can to press the Icelandic authorities to ensure that the UK creditors are treated fairly.

Anne Main: For about eight to 10 days now, I have been asking the Government one simple question, and I would like to give them another bite at the cherry. Last Monday, I said there was concern among small businesses about the 300 million raid on their funding through the regional development agencies. On Monday, I was told by an official that it was a difficult decision, taken with reluctance, and that the Prime Minister and other Ministers had been involved in it. I would like to know what evaluation was made of the impact of that decision on small businesses. I asked on Monday, and got no answer. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. McFadden)he is sitting next to the Economic Secretary nowand got no answer, and in my speech I requested an answer but got none, and nor was there any mention of it whatever in the summing up. I give the Economic Secretary another bite at the cherry: what evaluation was made of the impact on small businesses?

Ian Pearson: RDAs are important economic agents in their regional and local economies, and it is right that the Government provide support to them. Of course, decisions will from time to time be taken on different matters when there are changing prioritiesand I would like to think that the hon. Lady would have welcomed the housing package we announced on 2 September this year.

Adrian Sanders: The Government are right to focus on cash flow and improving credit, but what more can be done to help local authorities as, at the end of the day, it is they who are asked to give anoften discretionaryconcession to small businesses, and they frequently say they do not have the funds to do that?

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is right that cash flow is one of the first priorities for businesses during economic downturns. That is why the Government have taken the action we have taken and why getting in good, top-quality business advice is crucial. Many big businesses have a range of support available to them, but small companies often feel left on their own, and we as a Government want to say very clearly that we are on their side, and, in turn, we are providing practical advice and support to them. I believe that responsible local authorities also want to do that. Local authorities are independent in these matters, but I want to encourage them to work with Business Link and to ensure that we have a co-ordinated programme of support in local areas, as that is important.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Economic Secretary agree that sub-post offices are among the most important family-run businesses in both urban and rural areas? Does he also agree that as many of our constituents are currently moving money into safe post office and national savings accounts, now is not the time to scrap the Post Office card account, and will he give a guarantee today that it will remain in place?

Ian Pearson: That matter, which is clearly one for the Department for Work and Pensions, does not relate to the statement before the House. However, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, there are many small businesses in his constituency and the region that are the backbone of that local economy. It is right that this package of support is being made available to them. I hope he will welcome it, and I also hope he will appreciate that if his Front-Bench colleagues got their way and cut lending, it would not be possible to introduce such packages and small businesses in his constituency would be unable to get the support to which I think they are entitled.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Point of Order

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a matter of the greatest importance affecting your role as the defender of the interests of Members of Parliament? A decision has been taken and, sadly, Members have been denied an opportunity to comment on it. It was a decision to give an indemnity to an American company against future accidents that could cost the taxpayers multi-billion pound amounts. Information was given only to the Chairs of two Select Committees, while the minute informing Members arrived at the House only last week, 75 days after the date that was laid down for us to comment on it. That means there is no opportunity for us to comment on what appears to be a reversal of Government policy in subsidising the nuclear industry. It is a matter of great importance, which could lead in future to a very big bill for taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman raises is not a matter for me, but I understand his concern. It sounds to me like a good subject for an Adjournment debate, and I am quite sure he would be more than capable of informing the House of his concerns if such a debate were granted by Mr. Speaker.

Health and Safety (Education and Training)

George Howarth: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make requirements about the integration of health and safety issues in education and vocational training; and for connected purposes.
	Accidents at work destroy lives and cost money. Many, although not all, can be prevented. No amount of regulation or training can wholly eliminate human risk or error, but it is right that dangerous practices should be regulated. The principal focus of this Bill is to change mindsets, so that by the time young people reach employment they already have an understanding of the principles and practice of good health and safety. Correspondingly, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce the human, economic and social toll that results from poor management of health and safety risks, through effective education and training. It would achieve that by embedding health and safety into national vocational and professional curricula and helping to provide the skills needed to keep people well and to create and sustain a modern and competitive work force.
	Before I talk about the measures in the Bill, it is important to put it in context. Some 247 people were killed at work last year and 274,000 seriously injured. Some 2.2 million suffered an illness that they attributed to work. In addition, it is estimated that up to 1,000 people a year are killed in work-related road accidents and that thousands more die from occupational cancers. That is a particular concern in Knowsley, which is represented by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who is in his place.
	In the past decade in Britain, 64 under-19s were killed at work, nearly 15,000 suffered major injuries and more than 50,000 other teenagers were hurt by their work. It has been estimated that the cost to society of workplace accidents and work-related ill health is up to 31.8 billion a year.
	Reducing the number of needlessly lost and devastated lives must be a priority. We are fortunate that there is also a strong economic rationale for doing that. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that the cost to society of workplace accidents and work-related ill health ranges between 20 billion and 31.8 billion per annum. The total cost to individuals is estimated at between 10.1 billion and 14.7 billion a year, and the cost to employers at between 3.9 billion and 7.8 billion a year. A reduction in accidents will lead to reduced costs to employers, through less staff absence, and fewer disruptions in work flow.
	The Bill provides the scope to build on the foundations already laid in schools, so that workplaces provide adequate training for all levels of the work force. Those in crucial vocational and professional roles such as architects, planners, designers, engineers, managers, doctors and teachers need to understand the essentials of health and safety so that core principles can be designed into buildings and new ventures rather than imposed after the fact.
	There is a straightforward way to ensure that standards are raised consistently across the board. We need to embed relevant health and safety understanding as an integral element of all curricula. Clearly, that needs to be tailored to different ages and levels of expertise, but it makes sense to begin at an early age by tackling health and safety in schools before students start their work experience.
	The Department of Health's national director for health and work, Dame Carol Black, has rightly pointed out that future generations will have higher expectations, stating:
	Healthy workplaces need to become the expected norm...schools, further education and higher education have a role in embedding these expectations into the next generation.
	The good news is that much work has already been done. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, which I should thank for providing a good deal of briefing material for the Bill, has worked with the HSE, teachers and young people themselves to produce the workplace hazard awareness course, or WHAC. It is a free resource for teachers that emphasises the need to take a balanced approach. Additionally, it is important that managers understand their responsibilities, including how to supervise young people properly, and that people vetting work placements are suitably trained in health and safety.
	A number of things could be done to ensure a safe start in work. First, teacher training should equip new teachers to deliver a short course on health and safety so that students are properly prepared for their first work experience. There is also a need for professional development to help existing teachers achieve similar objectives. Secondly, we need to teach health and safety in the classroom before young people start work experience. WHAC, produced by the IOSH and the HSE, should be delivered as part of work experience preparation and could lead to a level 3 entry qualification.
	Thirdly, work placements should be organised in suitable environments. That means that people with the right health and safety knowledge must check that employers and workplaces are suitable. Training that meets national standards would help to achieve consistency and should be applied by schools, colleges and local authorities. That could be achieved more easily if bodies that award Government funding to work placement organisers required suitably trained placement officers.
	Fourthly, employer vetting and workplace supervision need to improve. The HSE and the Learning and Skills Council have improved the guidance to those involved in educating, training and employing young people.
	Fifthly, accidents need to be properly reported so that lessons are learned. There is a general problem of accidents being under-reported both at work and in education. Schools and colleges running vocational training on their premises are currently required only to report incidents in which students are killed or taken to hospital, as they are classed as members of the public. I ask the Government to consider tightening up the reporting requirements for students in colleges and schools.
	Sixthly, health and safety needs to be a priority. The Government should signal the importance of health and safety when setting their strategic priorities for education, training and skills. There is an opportunity for the Government to show leadership on the matter. For example, in England the health and safety of young people on Government-funded programmes could be noted as a key priority in the next LSC grant letter, which is due in November.
	I welcome the Government's new Education and Skills Bill. Its drive to improve the skills of the UK's work force is a welcome opportunity to integrate core health and safety principles into the training and education system. Health and safety should be seen as a key component of modern apprenticeships and new diplomas. It should also routinely be part of the disciplines of business and management qualifications, just as they currently cover marketing, finance and human resources. Such work is already being carried out by the inter-institutional group on health, safety and risk, to ensure that adequate health and safety knowledge is provided to engineering undergraduates. One such programme is being trialled at the university of Liverpool. All of that amounts to a welcome step forward, but more needs to be done so that business schools and universities systematically include health and safety in vocational disciplines, especially MBA programmes. Health and safety at work should also be fully incorporated into the new qualifications and credit framework.
	Finally, it is worth remembering that evidence shows that people new to workplaces are at a greater relative risk of work-related injury. Rhys Davies and Paul Jones of the Warwick Institute for Employment Research estimate:
	Those with current employment tenure of less than one month are almost 400 per cent. more likely to have a workplace injury than those with 20 years or more experience in their current job.
	Their research showed clearly that the risks are greatest in the first four months of a new job, which also has implications for those working on short-term or agency contracts.
	The Bill would create an opportunity to prepare young people so that when they begin their working lives, they are better able to handle the risks that face them. In time, that change in mindset will reduce unnecessary risk.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Terry Rooney, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. Michael Clapham, Paul Rowen, Harry Cohen, Bob Russell, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Joan Ryan.

Health and Safety (Education and Training)

Mr. George Howarth accordingly presented a Bill to make requirements about the integration of health and safety issues in education and vocational training; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed [Bill 155].

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will tell me if this is not an appropriate time to raise this point of order, but in view of the fact that the Minister is about to move a programme motion relating to the order in which amendments are taken, it seems the appropriate time to put it to you. As you know, Sir, I wrote to you last week regarding the selection of amendments. I accept totally that it is absolutely within your discretion to decide which amendments you select for debate, and that you are not required by precedent or procedure to state the reasons why you have selected them. Nevertheless, I am asking, and I will accept it entirely if you say that my point of order is invalid or that I am not raising it at the right time, whether it is open to you to explain to the Houseif it is not, I accept thathow it comes about that you have selected a large succession of new clauses on abortion when there is no reference in the Bill to abortion.

Mr. Speaker: First, the right hon. Gentleman did write to me, but I did not reply to him or to any other letters because I did not want to be drawn into this argument. It was only this morning that I was drawn into the argument, but I think that I can put on the record that I did not reply to the right hon. Gentleman for the reason that I have given. The amendments were selected because they were within the scope of the Bill; it is as simple as that. All the amendments on the Order Paper are there because they are within the scope of the Bill, and that is the explanation.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your advice and I am sorry that I have not had a chance to give you advance notice of this point of order. During business questions, we were told by the Leader of the House in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) that in today's debate
	the clauses, new clauses and amendments will be considered in the normal way.
	That was in response to a question asking whether new clause 1 would be dealt with first. In response to a question from me, we were told:
	The Bill will be debated according to the procedures in the normal way.[ Official Report, 16 October 2008; Vol. 480, c.925-6.]
	My understanding was that the normal way, in the absence of anything abnormal, would be that new clauses were debated before amendments in the order of selection, according to your selection. I should be grateful if you gave us guidance as to whether it is normal for there to be a programme motion that reverses the order of the normal way of doing these things.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House mentioned the normal wayI was in the Chair when that was said. I am not responsible for the way in which the Leader of the House or any other Minister of the Crown replies. On the normal way as the hon. Gentleman expresses it, he is right: it is laid out in a certain manner, except that the rules of the House allow a Minister to come forward and put down a programme motion. That is what is happening now, and we have before us a programme motion that changes the order of business in terms of what clauses will be called. Again, that is not a matter for me. A Minister is allowed to do that in the normal way, and it is up to the House to say yea or nay to what the Minister has to say.

John Pugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a new clause in the first sequence of amendments.

Mr. Speaker: The new clause is grouped.

Kenneth Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that, on the subject of the programme motion, it is within the powers of the House to alter the order of debate, but you have certain powers, which are governed by convention, protecting the practice of the House and the way in which it normally expects to debate the matters regarded as most significant to large numbers of Members. Do I take it that you accept that the Speaker has no discretion whatever if the Government of the day choose to order for debate amendments, as well as new clauses, in whichever order they deem fit? Obviously, the consequence is that they are able to choose that the House debate only those matters that are not, for some reason, inconvenient for them to have debated, and everything else falls to a guillotine under our new timetabled arrangements.

Mr. Speaker: This is up to the House. A programme motion is in order, and it is up to a Minister, if they so wish, to come forward with a programme motion. The motion has been tabled and it is for debate, and the House, if it so wishes, can vote it down. I am not suggesting that it should do that, but the House can vote the programme motion down, and if it does, we revert to the situation where the clauses are in the order of consideration. I hope that I am explaining myself properly. So, it is not a question of my discretion; at this stage it is before the House, and it is up to the House to say yea or nay to what the Minister is proposing.

Lynne Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I note that the order in which the amendments are printed in the Order Paper is also not in accordance with the usual convention. Normally, the new clauses are printed first, followed by the amendments in the order in which they relate to the Bill. In today's Order Paper, that convention has not been followed. On whose authority has this unconventional means of dealing with the amendments taken place?

Mr. Speaker: It is a regular practice of the House to re-marshal when a programme motion has been tabled. We have the programme motion, and I shall call Dawn Primarolo to move it.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [ Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 12th May 2008 (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [ Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the following order: amendments to the clauses of the Bill; amendments to the Schedules to the Bill; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration.
	3. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6 p.m. at this day's sitting.
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. at this day's sitting.
	The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill contains important provisions that are of great interest to the public and to patients, to the scientific community, to researchers and to Members in all parts of this House. They have a potentially profound impact. One in seven couples needs help with fertility treatment; 350,000 people in this country live with Alzheimer's; every week, five children are born with, and three young people die from, cystic fibrosis. All those issues, and the potential for treatments, this Bill addresses.
	Today is the last opportunity for the House to debate the Bill before it returns to the other place for consideration of the amendments that we have made. We have amendments for debate today that cover embryo research, the definition of embryos, the parenthood of people who receive assisted reproduction treatment, and saviour siblings. These matters go to the very heart of the Bill and they need consideration before it finally leaves this Chamber. The programme motion provides for that.

Mark Simmonds: I shall confine my remarks at this stage specifically to the programme motion. As the Minister correctly said, this is the last chance for the House to discuss many detailed and complex issues before the Bill moves to the other place. We Conservatives have a completely free vote on the Billfrom the programme motion to all amendments, and through to Third Readingand in my view the Government should have had far more free votes on it, as was the case with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The Government had free votes on only the three key areas, in addition to abortion: admixed embryos, saviour siblings and the need for a father.
	The Conservatives have a totally free vote, so my remarks from this Dispatch Box will be personal ones. Clearly, having one day to debate the volume of amendments that have been tabled, both about the main part of the Bill and about abortion, demonstrates what a insignificant amount of time the Government have allocated. It is possible that significant aspects of the Bill will not have been debated on the Floor of the House and will not be reached. Such issues might include key amendments to the saviour sibling proposals, key changes to the surrogacy arrangements and the disclosure of donor information.
	I sympathise with the Minister's view that the Bill is not a vehicle for abortion issues, but the Government must take note of the significant feeling in all parts of the House that a serious debate about the workings of the abortion legislation needs to take place. There is real concern and anger in all parts of the House about the Government's tactics to limit debate, both on abortion and on other key aspects of the Bill.
	I know that the Minister wants to ensure that the Bill, when it is enacted, has the same longevity as the 1990 Act, and like most Members of this House, I share that aim. A key part of the 1990 Act's success was the depth and thoroughness of the debate and discussion that took place on it, and my fear is that the curtailment of debate today as a result of the programme motion will mean that the same might not be said for this Bill. That is why I shall vote against the programme motion, given the chance.

Gerald Kaufman: I agree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) that the Bill deals with large and fundamental moral issues. I am not discussing the Bill's merits at the moment, but I point out that it deals with fundamental moral issues about the human race. I therefore agree that free votes are appropriate on this Bill, just as they were on the Bill that became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, when my party, like the hon. Gentleman's, had free votes throughout.
	After a great deal of discussion within the Labour party, our Whips have agreed to free votes along the way on this Bill. They have agreed to more free votes than they originally intendedtheir original intention was that we should have none. Despite the fact that Labour Members are whipped on Second Reading and on Third Reading, paragraph 3 of the parliamentary Labour party's code of conduct allows members of the PLP not to vote on an issue of this kind. Having written to the Chief Whip, I shall avail myself of paragraph 3 and not vote on Third Reading of the Bill, because I refuse to give it my support.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness rightly says that the issues raised in the Bill on which amendments have been tabled and to which the Government are giving priority go to the very heart of the nature of the human race. That is why it is very important that the programme motion allows the opportunity to discuss matters that trouble me and trouble large numbers of my constituents. Such matters relate to hybrid embryos and saviour siblings, among other things. It is essential that this House is given a proper opportunityand uses itto debate those issues and to come to decisions on them, whatever those decisions may be. I know on which side I shall be voting, as I did in Committee in May. I go that far with what the hon. Gentleman said.
	This Bill is clearly not about abortion, which is why I raised my point of order with Mr. Speaker before we began discussing the programme motion, why I went to see him and why I wrote to him. The Bill does not contain a single word about abortion; it did not when it was originally published or when it was completed, and it does not now. I acknowledgewho would not acknowledge it?that the issue of abortion is of profound importance, whatever view one takes on it. Many different views on abortion can be taken, so talking about pro-abortion and anti-abortion oversimplifies an approach to a topic on which people have very strong feelings. I respect those feelings, whatever side of the argument they represent. I do not regard it as appropriate for the issue of abortion, given all its profundities and the strong feelings it generates, to be pinned on to this Bill. The Bill was never tabled to deal with abortion and does not deal with it.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness is right to say that the issues relating to abortion, of which there are manythe time limit is but one such issue, despite its importance; other such issues include medical approval and the question of procedureare very important. However, it is clearly not appropriate to debate them in relation to a Bill that has nothing to do with abortion. It should be appropriate, at some stage, to debate the issues associated with abortion. Since David Steel introduced his private Member's Bill, the issue of abortion has never been introduced into, debated by or legislated on by this House of Commons as a Government issue and in Government time. As with a number of other very important moral issues, such as the legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults, these matters have been brought before this House of Commons by private Members.
	I support the Government's motion because the abortion issue should not be pinned on to a Bill that is not about abortion. If a Member of Parliament were to be successful in the ballot in the next Session and able to introduce a Bill on the issue, it might be appropriate at that stage for the House to debate it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would be convenient for the House if I were to re-emphasise the ruling that Mr. Speaker gave a short while ago that the subject of abortion is within the scope of the Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to maintain a clear distinction between arguing about Mr. Speaker's selection and about the order contained in the programme motion.

Gerald Kaufman: I made it perfectly clear in my point of order to Mr. Speaker that I totally respect the Speaker's right to decide which amendments to select. Once I had put my point of order to Mr. Speaker, I in no way questioned his decision; the House must accept his decision and respect it. If anything that I was just saying appeared to infringe on the Speaker's absolute right to make a selection within the bounds of order, I am very sorry, because that was never my intention. What the Government have done in this programme motion is to introduce an order in which the groups of amendments should be taken. That order, which the Government are proposing to the House and which I support and shall vote for in the event of a Division, says that amendments on abortion should be dealt with right at the end, after every amendment or group of amendments has been considered. That is appropriate because abortion is a subject all on its own. While it may well come within the ambit of the Bill as drawn, it was not intended by those who drafted the Bill to be debated as part of this Bill. That being so, I support this motion and I shall vote for it.

Norman Lamb: Like the Conservative spokesman, I confirm that my party will have free votes throughout the debate, including on the programme motion. What I say will therefore reflect my personal thoughts.
	I will oppose the programme motion. There has been no consultation on it. The Minister said in her opening remarks that the Bill dealt with serious issues that needed to be debated, but the Government could have chosen to take two days to debate it, and they could also have chosen not to have a statement today. So there is no substance to the Minister's suggestion that that is the reason for the proposed order for debate.
	It has been suggested that there may have been some secret deal or understanding that has led to this outcome. There have been suggestions that the Government are concerned about what might happen in the House of Lords, but Front Benchers from all parties in the other place have confirmed that they would not interfere with the decisions of this House on abortion. That was the case in 1967 and 1990. In any event, that is no good reason to prevent debate in this House.

John Pugh: My hon. Friend surely recognises that abortion was not discussed at any stage in the consideration of the Bill in the House of Lords.

Norman Lamb: My understanding is that it was, but in any case that does not negate the points that I am making.
	The Government allowed expectations to be raised that opportunity for debate would be provided at this stage. That is demonstrated by the number of amendments that have been tabled and the investment of time and energy by Members and by organisations outside on both sides of the argument. I am sure that all of us have received many letters and e-mails from women in Northern Ireland. Whatever side we take on that issue, those women clearly had an expectation that their case would be heard, but they will be denied that opportunity.
	The Government say that it is not appropriate to debate these issues at this time. If that is the case, when is the appropriate time to debate abortion issues? On other occasions, such debates have arisen on amendments tabled by Back Benchers. In 1990, the Conservative Government allowed time for discussion of abortion issues. This time, the Labour Government have refused to do so. Will the Minister give a commitment now to allow time at some future point? There has been a suggestion that the Government would commit to allowing time on a private Member's Bill. Will she now ensure that that is the case, because it is important that this significant issue, with strong feelings on both sides, should be properly aired and debated in this Chamber?

Diane Abbott: I speak against the programme motion becauseand I say this with no pleasureit and the order of discussion appear to be a shabby manoeuvre by Ministers to stop the full debate of some very important matters. I appreciate that Ministers did not intend this to be a Bill about abortion. I am open to the argument that we should have another piece of legislation that would enable a full debate on most of the matters in relation to abortion that have been raised as amendments and new clauses to the Bill, but there is a special case for debating and voting on the particular new clause that I tabled to extend the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland.
	In Northern Ireland, abortion is a criminal justice matter. In due course, criminal justice matters will revert to the Assembly. At present, no major party in the Assembly supports a woman's right to choose. If we do not debate my new clause today, women in Northern Ireland will lose for a generation the opportunity to gain the rights that women in the rest of the United Kingdom have enjoyed for more than 40 years. The other matters in relation to abortion can come back to the House in due course, but my new clause is widely regarded by the hundreds of women who have written to me as their last chance to get justice on this matter.
	I have been roundly abused by male politicians from Northern Ireland for tabling the new clause, so I wanted to touch not on the substance of the new clause but on why I have tabled it. I have not tabled it out of any desire to run contrary to people's deeply held religious opinions, nor out of a desire to persuade people in Northern Ireland that abortion is a good thingwhich I do not think myself. Nor did I table the new clause to override the authority of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I certainly did not table it to force a single woman in Northern Ireland to have an abortion. I tabled the new clause because, as it stands, the law on abortion in Northern Ireland is the same law that was passed in 1861. So long as this remains the Parliament of the United Kingdom and so long as women in Northern Ireland are citizens of the United Kingdom, we have a responsibility to move those women's rights into the 21st century.
	Women in Northern Ireland cannot have an abortion under the 1967 Act, not even as a result of rape, incest or gross foetal abnormality. If we do not have sufficient time to debate my new clause this afternoon, we may miss the opportunity to change that for a generation. Women from Northern Ireland cannot have an abortion in Northern Ireland. The lucky ones are the thousands who have the resources and the support to travel to Britain to get an abortion. How can that be right? If I go to Belfast and break a leg, I can have an operation on the national health service, but because of the manoeuvrings of politicians down the years, poor women have to find the moneyat a time of enormous stress and difficultyto come here and pay for an abortion. I do not wish to speak to the merits of my new clause, but I do wish to emphasise the urgency of this matter. The question is whether this United Kingdom Parliament is content to keep a group of women as second class citizens on this important issue of liberty and rights.

Ann Widdecombe: I am in a quandary. Normally, the very mention of the words timetable motion is enough to have me rushing into the No Lobby, but we Conservatives have a free vote today, even on the timetable motion, and I shall not go into the No Lobby. More time should have been given to a subject of this order of magnitude, but the Government are justified in taking the view that they have taken on the order of subjects for debate. This Bill began in the other place. There was no substantial debate on abortion there, save one brief examination of a disability issue related to abortion. In other words, all the issues that were raised in this House were not raised in another place and have not been debated there. That would not matter if the Bill were starting here, but it started in another place. Surely the Government are right to say that given that we have limited timewhich is a shame, because time should not be so limitedthe issues that we must discuss are those in the original Bill, which have already been debated and which are still in the Bill, rather than those that were raised only at a late stage in this House, which have never been considered by the other place.
	The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), and I have never agreed on any issue even remotely connected to this subject matter, but I reluctantly have to say that I think that the motion is right. I urge people who do not normally welcome timetable motions to at least take that into account when deciding how to use their free vote.

Frank Field: Many Opposition Members have laid proper emphasis on the fact that they will have free votes on this measure, but we will have free votes for those Labour Members who wish to exercise them. I encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to do precisely that.
	I wish to address a question to the Minister. She was so thoughtful in ensuring that the House had as much as possible of the 45 minutes available to discuss the programme motion that one did not even have a chance to intervene. I believe that the Government are right to say that we should concentrate on the main issues that gave rise to the Bill. I also believe that the way we go about debating abortion in this place, picking off bits and pieces as though we were playing bingo, is not an appropriate way to consider a major issue.
	That is why I tabled a new clause that would empower the House to set up a Select Committee of both Houses to report back coherently on how we might or might not reform the abortion laws. My preference would be that we should make abortion much easier earlier on and much tougher later on, but it might be that that would not be the conclusion of the Select Committee. We would then at least have before us a coherent set of proposals. We would know what we were voting for and could table our amendments accordingly.
	Although the Government are right to exclude abortion today, I hope that when the Minister gracefully replies she will tell us what the Government's plans are to give us the appropriate time for the sort of debate for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) also asked.

Kenneth Clarke: I find this programme motion particularly cynical. It marks another rather important change in the way that Parliament is handled. The Government have decided to stop parliamentary debate on various important issues altogether and to ensure that no votes take place at all on key issues that they find it politically embarrassing to have raised at the present time. If that becomes an established practice, we will see another serious step back in the way the House can discuss matters.
	This is the first time that the House has had the opportunity to discuss embryology or abortion in Government time since 1990. We have private Members' Bills on the subject of abortion from time to time, but they do not have the faintest prospect of changing the law because there is always, on one side or the other, a sufficient blocking minority to stop progress. I would be very surprised if more Government time were made available in the next 20 years or so for those subjects to be returned to, but they are very important to many of our constituents and they arouse profound emotions.
	The general public, whom we represent, have every view and none on the subject, but there is an enormous range of opinion, about which people on both sides feel very passionately. It cuts completely across political party, both for the public and for us, and there is no way in which a particular Member of Parliament can possibly hold himself up as representing the strong feelings that some sections of the population hold.
	We must have legislation, and this is the legislative Chamber for the country. As it happens, the House is representative, because, again crossing party lines, Members of the House of Commons represent, in my experience, just about every range of opinion one could possibly have on the subject. Many Members have strong feelings on moral, political, practical and social grounds that ought to be expressed. Every now and again, a chance comes to address those issues.
	The 1990 Act has been referred to, and I spent far too much time on Second Reading reminding the House of how that went through. A free vote was permitted to every Member of the House, including Ministers in the then Government. That Bill was deliberately drafted to ensure that abortion came within its scope. I pay credit to Geoffrey Howe, now Lord Howe, who was then the Leader of the House of Commons. He made it quite plain that he wanted me, as Secretary of State, to ensure that the Bill was drafted in such a way that Mr. Speaker would allow abortion amendments, because there was such a demand from the House that they should be considered. A great deal of time was allowed for the discussion and the law was settled for the next 18 years. It needs to be revisited and debated again.
	A motion such as this programme motion merely serves to outrage the range of opinion in the House, on both sides of the argument, as people find that they are not allowed to open up the subjects again. There is no practical reason for it. It is some political embarrassmentpolitical with a small p or a large Pthat causes the problem. I suspect that Scottish by-elections are determining the progress of the Bill all the way through.
	The House has lots of time in which it could consider the issues. I cannot remember a period in which the House of Commons has had less serious business to transact brought before it by the Government. There is no earthly reason why we should not have the powers extended today to go on into this evening. There is no earthly reason why we should not have two days' debate, at least at this stage. A Christmas recess of quite unprecedented length has just been announced, because the Government cannot think of anything to occupy the time of the House.
	As we have, in practice, a free vote on both sides, I make the usual hopeless plea that I have found myself making in recent debates on programme motions. I trust that Members on all sides will regard themselves as having a free vote. If we allow this motion to be whipped through, it will be applied to other sensitive and political Bills. In future, by reordering clauses and putting knives in the guillotine and so on, the Government will be able to determine that any subject that they regard as inappropriate or unsuitable will not even be debated, let alone voted on, by the House of Commons. Such cynicism would take my breath away if I were not becoming ever more accustomed to such a process on the part of a control-freak Government who regard the House of Commons as an embarrassing nuisance to be silenced on all suitable occasions.

Fiona Mactaggart: I have spoken to the Bill on a number of occasions, and on each occasion I have spoken about the embryology elements, but I have been in the Chamber when amendments relating to abortion have been discussed. It feels to me as though the issue is being treated in an asymmetrical way, so that those who sought at an earlier stage to curtail abortion rights were heard, but those who seek at this stage to extend them are to be silenced by the programme motion. Frankly, I feel that that is a failure of leadership of this House and this Government and we should rethink.
	I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) makes a reasonable point when he says that the Bill is not necessarily the right vehicle with which to deal with this matter. If we were assured by those on the Front Bench that there would be an opportunity to deal properly with the issue, when all aspects of the abortion debate could be properly discussed, I would be content to support the programme motion. If we do not receive that assurance, I shall not feel able so to do.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I rise to support the Government and the programme motion. I assure the House that my party was not party to any deal whatsoever on this issue.
	The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred to her new clause 30, which is before the House today and which would have the effect of extending the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland. One reason for our support of the programme motion is that we believe that it is not appropriate for the House to debate that new clause today, as there is strong opposition in Northern Ireland to the proposition on which it is based.
	I know that hon. Members will have received a letter from the leaders of the four main parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The letter was written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who is my party leader, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), the leader of Sinn Fein, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, and Sir Reg Empey, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. Between them, those four parties represent more than 90 per cent. of the electorate in Northern Ireland, and have more than 100 seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That makes it clear that this sensitive matter should be dealt with by the Assembly and not by this Parliament.
	Northern Ireland has had separate legislation on this and many other issues, going back centuries. Indeed, there are different bodies of law that apply in Scotland and Wales, and there is nothing unique about the issue of abortion. In Northern Ireland, we have laws in respect of other matters of legality that are different from the laws that apply in other parts of the UK.
	It is clear that we should consider only the human fertilisation and embryology element of the Bill and not try to tack on something that will cause considerable problems for the political process in Northern Ireland. The implementation of the 1967 Act, if it were to be extended to Northern Ireland, would fall largely to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would therefore be entirely wrong for this House to legislate against the wishes of the parties in the Assembly, as those parties would be required to implement a law with which they did not agree.

Crispin Blunt: Unless my memory serves me falsewhich it may be doingmy recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman did try to amend the Bill at an earlier stage in order to add abortion issues to it. If so, does he agree that his argument simply will not wash?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I did not table any amendments to this Bill at any stage, so the hon. Gentleman is entirely incorrect in that respect. As far as the principle is concerned, any Member of this House is of course free to vote on any amendment, but new clause 30 has been tabled by hon. Members who represent constituencies where abortion is already available. We are dealing with these matters in the context of the 1967 Act, and no hon. Member with a constituency in Northern Ireland supports new clause 30. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington has not set foot in Northern Ireland to talk to people about this issue.
	The hon. Lady has not consulted about her new clause, even though section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998which was passed by this House and which enacted the Belfast agreementrequires that any major legislation brought forward by Parliament or the Assembly should be subject to proper consultation and equality impact assessments. There is no opportunity for the public to be consulted about new clause 30, so she and the other hon. Members who have proposed the new clause are simply seeking to impose their will in a way that goes against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and of their elected representatives.
	The leaders of the four main parties in Northern Ireland have written to all hon. Members to say that the matter should be addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and not by this House. That is why I urge the House to support the programme motion, and to leave this matter to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.

Jim Dobbin: I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for bringing this Bill back after July. At that time, I was unfortunately indisposed, and never got the opportunity to vote against it. I shall now be able to listen to the debate, take part in it if necessaryand then vote against it on Third Reading. That will give me some satisfaction.
	The Bill is about human fertilisation and embryology issues, but that is not the perception in the public arena. The media coverage that the Bill has received means that the public perception is that it is purely about abortion, and that is why I support the programme motion. Abortion is a very serious issue, and I accept that it comes within the scope of the Bill, but it is not the dominant aspect of the Bill and there are many other important matters that need proper debate.
	I believe that there should be a proper review of the Abortion Act 1967. That is the way ahead, because it would allow people on both sides of the argument to have a reasonably intense and detailed debate. If we were being honest with ourselves, we would not play this sort of game. We would treat all of these subjects with great seriousness.

Jacqui Lait: I do not often feel sorry for the Government, but in a sense they are the victims of their own actions. We are debating these matters because they have recognised the pent-up demand in the House to examine the abortion issue, and the logical result of that is that any hon. Member can table an amendment on the subject.
	We all recognise that the Bill is fundamentally about human fertilisation and embryology, and that is a very big and important subject. I must gently disagree with the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) and what he said about the amount of publicity given to the human fertilisation and embryology element of the Bill, but there is huge demand for clarification and modernisation of the law on abortion. That is what all the amendments are about, and I very much agree with those who have pointed out that there is plenty of time in our parliamentary timetable for the necessary debates to take place. That is why I shall go into the No Lobby against the Government, even though in general I approve of what they are trying to do with the Bill.

Dari Taylor: I am very disappointed to have to state that I will have great difficulty in supporting the programme motion this afternoon. I chair the House's all-party fertility group, and am well aware that the community of people outside the House who have serious problems conceiving are looking to the Bill for support.
	However, the Bill makes no mention of access to NHS facilitiessomething that was discussed in full in the other place. There, the subject was given a very fair run, but we in this House are not allowed to discuss it. The Bill focuses on the regulation of IVF treatment and research, and makes no mention of the many other treatments that infertile people can access.
	The founding principle of the NHS was that people could receive treatment at the point of need, but most people with infertility problems have to go to private clinics, where IVF is the only treatment on offer. They often have to pay for that treatment by remortgaging their homes. I am seriously disappointed that we will have no chance to discuss these issues. I tabled an amendment in the hope that it might be selected for debate, but it has not.
	I shall have great difficulty in supporting the programme motion this afternoon.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am prepared to call one more hon. Member to speak, on the basis that he or she respects the fact that I want to call the Minister to respond to the debate at 2.20 pm.
	I call Mr. Robert Key.

Robert Key: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with great regret that I shall not be supporting the timetable motion. I have supported the Government through thick and thin, I think, in their attempt to get on the statute book a moderate and tolerant piece of legislation that is absolutely necessary. I have accepted that it is perfectly in order to debate the question of abortion, so I regret very much that we shall probably not have time this afternoon to discuss even those important issuessuch as parenthood, surrogacy or saviour siblingsthat relate to the original Bill.
	That is a very great regret, because I think that the Government are well intentioned with this Bill. I therefore ask that theyand Parliamentconsider changing the habits of a lifetime: they should accept that the very important issue of abortion should not be shuffled off to a private Member's Bill but instead tackled in Government time with a Government Bill. We are mature enough in this country now to take those issues as public business; they are public business. I therefore hope that they will be so treated in the future.
	Meanwhile, I shall vote against the programme motion, because it ignores the wishes not only of almost everyone in the Chamber today, but of our constituents, who are bemused, indeed amazed, that although we have plenty of time, the Government are rushing the Bill througheven though they are largely right.

Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	These are very important matters, and it is important to focus on the Bill. It is about IVF treatment. Actually, it is about access to the treatment, the improvement of that treatment and broadening the range of people who are entitled to it. It is about research on debilitating and killing diseases and about giving hope. The Bill has had 81 hours of debate thus far. Unusually, it has had two days on the Floor of the Houseunique for this type of Billincluding time for the debate on abortion, without restriction on the subjects on which amendments could be tabled.
	I shall answer two specific questions that have been put to me. First, there are no plans to introduce a Bill on abortion. Secondly, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who asked about a special Committee of both Houses, that is not a matter for Ministers; it is a matter for the House authorities, and he can pursue that if he wishes.

Frank Field: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I understand that she is saying that that is not a matter for her, but if we had a vote on that, would she support new clause 34, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) have tabled?

Dawn Primarolo: My right hon. Friend will know that that is not for me to say as a Minister. I may have a view personally, but I am speaking from the Dispatch Box as a Minister. There is a free vote, and each Member will be able to decide. Those are the free votes that we will conduct this afternoon.

Question put:
	 The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 157.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [ Lords]

As amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.

Clause 3
	  
	Prohibitions in connection with embryos

John Pugh: I beg to move amendment No. 49, page 3, line 26, after 'transmission', insert 'via cytoplasm'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 41, page 3, line 26, at end insert
	'(5A) Regulations made under subsection (5) may not provide for an egg or embryo whose nuclear genetic material has been altered by genetic modification, or whose nucleus has been replaced by the nucleus of a somatic cell, to be a permitted egg or a permitted embryo.
	(5B) In this section, genetic modification includes the alteration of the nuclear genetic material of an egg or embryo by
	(a) recombinant nucleic acid techniques which change the DNA sequence of nuclear chromosomes of the egg or one or more cells of the embryo, or
	(b) the introduction into the egg or into one or more cells of the embryo of a stably-maintained artificial chromosome, virus or plasmid.'.
	Amendment No. 47, in clause 4, page 4, line 37, at end insert
	'(f) an embryo created by combining pluripotent or totipotent human cells with amimal embryonic cells in which the latter have been altered so as to contain double the number of chromosomes, or in which the animal cells have been otherwise altered to become largely or entirely extra-embryonic tissue.'.
	Amendment No. 50, in clause 68, page 53, line 19, at end insert
	'(2A) This section shall be subject to section  (prohibition on placing human gametes into an animal).'.
	Amendment No. 73, in schedule 2, page 58, line 42, at end insert
	'(4A) A licence under this paragraph may not authorise any activity the purpose of which is to develop techniques for creating a child by germ line genetic modification.
	(4B) Regulations made by virtue of paragraph 3A(1)(c) may not provide for activities the purpose of which is to develop techniques for creating a child by germ line genetic modification.
	(4C) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3A, germ line genetic modification means
	(a) altering the nuclear genetic material of an embryo, or of a gamete used to create an embryo, by
	(i) recombinant nucleic acid techniques which change the DNA sequence of nuclear chromosomes of one or more cells of the embryo or of the gamete, or
	(ii) the introduction into one or more cells of the embryo or into the gamete of a stably-maintained artificial chromosome, virus or plasmid, and
	(b) placing the embryo containing the genetic alteration in a woman, so that any resulting child could transmit the genetic alteration to its descendants.'.
	New clause 24 Prohibition on placing human gametes into an animal
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make it an offence to place any human gamete into an animal.
	(2) Sections 3 and 4 of this Act shall not come into force until regulations under subsection (1) have been made.'.

John Pugh: As sufficient brickbats have been handed out so far, may I put on record that this emotive Bill was dealt with courteously and considerately in Committee?
	The big debate is about whether it is right to extend the range of experiments involving the human embryo that may be carried out. The alleged goal is the extension of scientific and medical knowledge that could alleviate human suffering, especially, but not exclusively, that of a generic origin. For some hon. Members, no possible reduction in suffering, improvement in maternity or growth of knowledge can justify what they regard as the violation of human life and the interference with normal human development. Their position is unqualified. For many hon. Members in the Chamber, however, this is a case of balancing hope and fear. On the one hand, there is the hope that some day, terrible inheritable and cellular diseases will be conquered, and on the other hand, there is the fear that an increasingly casual approach to human life will denature our society and create possibilities that we would not wish. That balance is being played out in nearly every Member's head.
	I suspect that we cannot know with any confidence whether those hopes or fearsor bothwill be realised many years hence, so we all act on a kind of faith. Our position depends on whether we believe that the grounds for hope outweigh the grounds for fear, or vice versa. On Second Reading, that point was made most eloquently by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who is not in the Chamber; he said that he was more fearful than hopeful. That is the heart of the debate.
	Whatever one's judgment on the main issue, my amendments Nos. 49 and 50 and new clause 24 do not affect it, because regardless of one's take on the Billfor or againstwe know that it was never intended that the Bill would authorise human genetic engineering or reproductive cloning, even through it repeals the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001. Nor was it intended that the Bill would allow scope for genetic engineering or reproductive cloning. The humane intention behind the Bill is to allow women whose eggs are encased in cytoplasm with disease-carrying mitochondria to transfer those eggs into healthy cytoplasm and avoid inheritable disease. I am sure that we all wish to avoid the transmission of inheritable disease.
	The key point is that the Bill says that an egg or embryo for which mitochondrial disease is addressed is a permitted egg or embryo. It is an unquestionable, but ignored, fact that some mitochondrial diseases result from deficiencies in the nucleus, rather than arising from the cytoplasm or the mitochondria. The manipulation of the nucleus is thussubject to regulation, of courseunintentionally permitted. Several amendments in the group, including Nos. 49 and 41, would address that by simply closing the door, or drawing the line, and restricting the law to what was originally intended.

Ian Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the vast majority of genes in the mitochondria look after mitochondrial proteins, which apply across the human race? They would not contribute to a person's individuality, so he is exaggerating the problem of mitochondrial disease.

John Pugh: To exaggerate a problem is still to identify that a problem exists, and I do not think that it was intended that the Bill would generate such a problem.
	Hon. Members may think that amendment No. 41 is more comprehensive than amendment No. 49, which I tabled, but my amendment would put the Bill back on track. The amendment would mean that the Bill would do what hon. Members, whether they support or oppose it, thought that it actually did.

Evan Harris: May I offer my support for my hon. Friend's amendment No. 49, which is at the head of the group that we are discussing? I have no doubt that the regulations in the clause would stop nuclear modification to prevent cytoplasmic disease, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority would not, in any event, license such a procedure, but my hon. Friend is right: it is sensible for legislation to say what it means. There is no doubt that the Government mean the provision to deal only with cytoplasmic causes of mitochondrial disease in DNA. It is unfortunate that the Bill reaches us in this imperfect form, but my hon. Friend's amendment would improve it.

John Pugh: I thank my hon. Friend for that support. I see that we are in a holy, or perhaps unholy, alliance. We all have our views on the slippery slope argument, but slopes are certainly a lot more slippery if we do not examine carefully where we are treading and what exactly we are doing. Arguably, that is all my amendment seeks to do. We are talking about not an unintended consequence, but an unintended meaning to the Bill, which it behoves us to address.
	Turning to new clause 24 and amendment No. 50, the legislation prohibits the placing of animal gametes or embryos in a human. My amendment mirrors that by banning the placing of human gametes in an animal for experimental purposes. Such an experimental procedure was carried out as recently as in 1984 in Australia. It, too, involved embryos. At the moment, such an act is covered, rather weakly, only by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
	Arguments against that simple, seemingly innocuous but important amendment are extraordinarily weak. They include the argument that so far, such experiments have been futile and uninformativethat is probably trueand the argument that scientists would not want to do such procedures anyway. The Department of Health argued that
	the development of a foetus or progeny is impossible,
	but that is disputed by Professor Millar of the Medical Research Council.

Kevin Barron: The Medical Research Council, the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Wellcome Trust and the Academy of Medical Sciences say that new clause 24 and amendment No. 49 would weaken invaluable research. What does the hon. Gentleman say to that?

John Pugh: I would really like instruction on what that invaluable research, conducted in such a bizarre way, would deliver.

Evan Harris: As I understand it, some of the research that would be banned by my hon. Friend's new clause involves looking at the development of human gametes in the context of animals. It is not about creating embryos; it is about studying the development of human gametes in vitro. That is what his new clause would cut across. I do not think that it is the sort of frightening research that some would say it is, and I do not think that he is justified to seek to ban it when it is already regulated in other ways.

John Pugh: There is absolutely no reason that I can think of why such research should not be banned if people cannot state clearly the identifiable benefits that could be derived from it. That is quite apart from the question of whether humankind can be crossed with other primatesthat, of course, is the scenario that most frightens peopleand whether Stalin's scientists' dreams of creating a humanzee can be realised. That could all be science fiction.
	I want to make two simple points. First, why should we legislators leave it to scientists to set limits on what is morally permissible? Scientists, bankers and MPs are all, in general, decent honourable folk. However, where there is an interest, I have limited faith in self-regulation for any of them. After all, in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, we outlawed placing a human embryo in an animal.
	Secondly, would it not be a sight as monstrous as any hybrid creation to see hon. Members shuffle through the Lobby to preserve the right of scientists to put human gametes in animals' wombs? How would such an action be represented to their constituents? If hon. Members suggested and supported something that absurd and abhorrent, would not constituents think that hon. Members themselves had been transmuted into a flock of unreasoning sheep?

David Drew: In many respects, I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman, because amendments Nos. 41 and 73, in my name and the names of a number of other hon. Members, are in the same vein. We wish to make it absolutely explicit, in the two amendments, that we are ruling out human genetic modification. I have always been pleased to try to do that in other areas, too. I have always been an opponent of the genetic modification of food, so it is unsurprising that I am an opponent of any attempt to allow it to happen to human beings.
	I would like to think that I have the support of the Government, and of my right hon. Friend the Minister in particular. On a number of occasions she has made it absolutely explicit that the Government have no intention of allowing genetic modification of human beings. I think that the argument is about how the Government say that. However, the legislation could implyI put it no more strongly than thatsomething slightly different. Amendment No. 41 basically tries to clarify that the Government cannot allow themselves, or a subsequent Administration, to use secondary legislation to do what should really come within the purview of this Houseto clarify by clearly stating in legislation what should and should not be allowed. Amendment No. 73 basically says that if we do not have agreement and do not want to specify outcomes, it is meaningless to permit scientists to experiment in this field.

Ian Gibson: My hon. Friend may be confusing the issue. For example, if somebody has cystic fibrosis, it is possible now to attempt to introduce genes, by various mechanisms, into the lung cells to prevent what we call somatic disease. However, a disease could also pass into the gametes, and be passed on from the person who is being treated to their children, should they be fortunate enough to have children. It is then in the genetic line. Part of my brain can see why we ban such research at the moment, but another part says, Perhaps one day we'll get lucky. In other words, perhaps we will be able to knock out genetic disabilities. Many genetic diseases250 or 300 of themcould then be completely knocked out. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

David Drew: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but we have to deal with what we are faced with today. The amendments are carefully phrased. We are looking at mitochondrial opportunities to deal with diseases that someone might carry, but the amendments would make it absolutely clear that that should not be done through human genetic modification. There is a dividing line, but I hope that the Government are clearly on my side, and that of other hon. Members.
	I have written to my right hon. Friend the Minister on the subject; unfortunately, I have not had a reply. I refer to the letter sent by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and me. We wrote to the Government in the hope that the point would be clarified before Report, given that in Committee I tried to draw attention to what some of us saw as a particular problem. To refresh everyone's memory, we are talking about proposed new section 3ZA to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which, to many of us, is the key part of the Bill before us. It goes to the essence of what human fertilisation and embryology is all about. Those of us who wish to shut down genetic modification will draw attention to any loophole that will result from the Bill becoming law.
	As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), I have no problem with the Government's aim of helping people with mitochondrial conditions. The problem is that proposed new section 3ZA(5) is so broadly worded that it would allow a future Government to permit absolutely any techniqueincluding genetic modification or even reproductive cloningto prevent transmission of mitochondrial conditions. We want the Government to respond to that issue.
	We feel that the Government have to clarify their position, because although there is an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise in respect of permitting any technique that requires the passing of regulations, that is not the same as primary legislation. Views will change, and as has just been said, matters may pass on. As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, unless the legislation is clear from the outset, there will be the slippery slope about which some of us are very concerned.
	The Minister cannot have it both ways. If the Government are coming down against the genetic modification of children, that needs to be stated in the Bill and we should not need to go to secondary legislation. If that does not happen, the Government will effectively be supporting a loophole that would permit such modification to happen in due course. There is an argument that my amendment might interfere with the techniques for mitochondrial donation. However, according to people far more scientifically knowledgeable about these issues than I, there are other ways in which such donations can be made. From my philosophical point of view, those are very preferable to genetic modification.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Southport. We have had a listening Government and open-minded discussions. What happened before is different, but to me that is a slightly different issue. I hope that the Government will respond. The problem is that if we do not get things right with amendment No. 41 at this stage, that will be the law, even if there is a subsequent attempt to provide more control through the regulatory process. Some of us are nervous about that, because attitudes change and 90 minutesat bestis not a good length of time in which to discuss such huge philosophical issues.
	Amendment No. 73 clearly links to amendment No. 41, and through it we are asking why the Government, if they wanted to will the endnot allowing genetic modification in respect of the creation of childrenwere not prepared to rule out the means. As it is currently constituted, the Bill will allow scientists to continue to experiment in this area. That is problematic for two reasons. First, this country is an outrider on this issue in the world, and certainly Europe. Many European countries have ruled out the process. I am quizzical about why, in saying that they want a degree of restrictiveness in this area, the Government have not signed the relevant convention. That has been discussed in Committee and on Second Reading. Even if we want to be at the front end of scientific progress, why are we out on our own? Some of us do not want to go to certain places.
	If our view is that we wish to make genetic modification in respect of the creation of children illegal, shutting down scientific research on the issue would seem perfectly reasonable. If it is not shut down, scientists in this country or elsewhere will work on the issue. If we believe that science will eventually find answers, such scientistswhether mavericks or the most genuine members of the scientific communitywill push through that door. We will then be faced with the dilemma of what to do with that researchsorry about the pun, but the genie will really be out of the bottle.
	I have explained why amendment No. 73 is vital. It would not interfere with the basic research, because other forms of research dealing with all manner of genetic imperfections would be allowed to carry on. The problem is that unless we are clear that we are not encouraging research through genetic modification, somebody somewhere, if the legislation retains its current wording, will go on with it.
	I hope that the Minister will give a good response and that the House, if asked to vote, will come clearly down against genetic modification, which I am sure everyone in the House is against. The argument is about how best to be against it. If amendment No. 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Southport, is pushed to a Division, I will support it. However, I hope that my more comprehensive amendment is taken seriously and seen as a way of helping the Government, who, I am sad to say, have listened but not acted as some of us would have wished. They have not been comprehensive in clarifying their views on human genetic modification.

David Burrowes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), and I support their amendments. Many of us opposed in principle the prospect of human admixed embryos, but we had a vote on that principle and the House decided to go ahead with it. Many also opposed the practical results proposed by the Government; indeed, during discussion of the programme motion today, the Minister again alluded to the prospect of treatment for Alzheimer's disease and other debilitating conditions. Many of us applaud that fine motivation, but are concerned that the Government are marching us up to a false summit. Many of us sought to oppose the move because we felt that there were ready alternatives that are producing therapeutic treatments and offer great prospects of further cures to such debilitating illnesses.
	I wish to speak to amendment No. 47, tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members. It is not a wrecking amendment; it does not seek to oppose the principle of human admixed embryos, as we have to accept the previous will of the House. Nevertheless, there will obviously be a fundamental vote on Third Reading. Our amendment seeks to do something important: plug a gap that has exercised the minds of many. The Minister has mentioned that there have been 80 hours of deliberation and many of those have been taken up in discussion of whether the definitions of human admixed embryos in the Bill are adequate. Amendment No. 47 is significant, and I will want to press it to a Division.
	On Third Reading in the other place, the noble Lord Darzi raised the issue of definition. He said:
	My Lords, the issue of defining human admixed embryos has long vexed all those who have tried to tackle it. It was probably the topic that the Joint Committee of both Houses that scrutinised the draft Bill spent most time considering.
	Like other hon. Members here, eighteen months ago I was a member of that ably chaired Joint Committee. We sought to be as constructive as possible to assist the Government to come to an appropriate definition. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee also undertook an inquiry specifically into the issue of definitions, which is a matter that has led us down many different paths. Indeed, I pay tribute to the noble Lord Mackay, who gave particular consideration to the issue, both in the Joint Committee and in the other place, with Ministers and others, to try to help us come to a definition.
	As a lawyer, I would perhaps tend to look to definitions as an important part of any Bill. It is therefore quite right that we should begin our considerations this afternoon with the issue of definition. If we cannot get the definitions right, that does not hold out much hope for the Bill's practical application. Notwithstanding all the results that we want to achieve, it should concern us all in the House if we cannot get the definition right. I therefore hope that my amendment No. 47 will attract widespread support from those who, despite being vehemently for or against human admixed embryos in principle, whatever I say, are concerned that the definitions in the Bill should be comprehensive.
	The noble Lord Darzi said on Third Reading:
	We are now facing what we hope will be the final steps in this journey.
	Those final steps led to an essentially catch-all definition, which he described in that debate in terms of clause 4, which includes a
	regulation-making power to extend the definition of human admixed embryos if necessary.
	He added:
	It has been included to ensure that if someone comes up with the type of human-animal embryo at the human end of the spectrum that is not captured by the definition, there is a power to extend the definition to catch it. This is a future-proofing mechanism.
	It is for this House to try to ensure to the best of our ability that we get the definitions right, so that they are fully comprehensive and so that everyone out therethe scientists and the publicis clear about what we mean by human admixed embryos. We should not simply devolve the issue to future delegation or a future-proofing mechanism. That is not satisfactory.
	The gap in the current definitions needs to be addressed properly. My amendment No. 47 seeks to do that. The gap is crucialit is the gap in the law between the Bill and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The amendment standing in my name addresses that gap, by adding another type of chimeric embryo to the definition of human admixed embryo in clause 4, which would otherwise remain unregulated.
	The science behind the creation of such embryos is complexone would perhaps need a hot towel on one's head to understand it fullybut it is important not to be blinded by that complexity, because the concept is very simple. Indeed, the noble Lord Darzi put the issue in its proper context, again on Third Reading, saying that the Government's intention was for the Bill to ensure that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
	regulates human-animal embryos at the human end of the spectrum. [ Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2008; Vol. 698, c. 853- 4.]
	That is the context that my amendment No. 47 seeks to address.
	That principle was reinforced in Committee on 19 May by proposed new section 4A (6)(e) to the 1990 Act, which captures any embryo outside the other definitions of a human admixed embryo in subsection (6) that
	contains both nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of a human and nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of an animal...but in which the animal DNA is not predominant.
	Hon. Members need to ask themselves today whether that provides sufficient clarity or whether there are any circumstances that would lead to a lack of regulation of a key area of research.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the Prime Minister writing in an article in  The Observer on 8 May that the Government were bringing forward clear legislation, that is precisely what they have not done? My hon. Friend is manfully dealing with the complexity of the issue, as have other members of the Public Bill Committee, but they have been completely swept along by a vast labyrinth of complexity, which will render most of the legislation impossible for anybody to understand.

David Burrowes: Certainly the issues are complex and certainly there has been a desire at an early stage for clarity. Whether we have all been swept along by that complexity is perhaps for others to judge. There is certainly a need for clarity, however, particularly in the definitions.
	I would like to give some examples of where that lack of clarity poses potential dangers that need to be dealt with. As the Minister will no doubt remind me when she responds, the Government's intention in adding a catch-all category to the definition of human admixed embryos in the Bill was, as she explained on a previous occasion, to provide
	further clarity of the scope of the term,
	adding:
	In addition to the four precise scientific definitions already in the Bill, that will ensure that all new forms of embryos that may be developed that contain both human and animal DNA will, where the animal DNA does not predominate, fall within the regulation. [ Official Report, 18 May 2008; Vol. 476, c. 59.]
	That is the test that we have to hold that catch-all category up to. Does it provide further clarity? Does it ensure that all new forms of embryos that we are aware of are captured? The Government's approach was that the human end of the spectrum referred to any embryo containing both animal and human DNA, where the human DNA was more than 50 per cent. of the total, and that all such embryos should and would be regulated under the Bill.
	The Joint Committee, of which I was a member, considered the matter and reported on it. The issue exercised our minds; indeed, letters were written to the Department of Health and the Home Office, given their twin responsibilities. In our conclusions, in paragraph 163, on page 47 of the report, we said:
	The second issue centres on the human-animal boundary and which entities should be regulated as human embryos and which should be regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. We have received a lot of evidence suggesting that there is no principle, as such, which underpins the Government's choice of 50 per cent. as a cut-off point for whether an entity is sufficiently human to merit regulation by the HFEA, or whether it is more appropriately regulated as an animal by the Home Office. The 50 per cent. rule intended to be embodied in subsection (e),
	as it was thenit has since been amended
	is essentially an arbitrary attempt to draw a line between what qualifies as human and what as animal.
	There can perhaps be few more important issues than what qualifies as human and what as animal.
	The Joint Committee continued, in paragraph 164:
	We heard evidence arguing that the issue as to what proportion of the entity is human and what proportion is animal is not clear-cut.
	To pick up on the intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made, the issue is a complex one that has exercised the minds of great experts. The Joint Committee continued:
	For example, Professor Martin Bobrow, Chair of the Academy of Medical Sciences
	reference has already been made to that august body
	working party on interspecies embryos, told us that what makes an entity human rather than animal is not easily measured in DNA terms, although, if a line in the sand had to be drawn, he saw no reason why it should not be drawn at 50 per cent.
	The report continued:
	Professor Sir Richard Gardner, Edward Penley Abraham Research Professor of the Royal Society in the University of Oxford, raised the more technical issue of what the 50 per cent. actually refers tofor example, when calculating the relative quantities of mitochondrial DNA (which may come from a cow egg) against quantities of nuclear DNA (which may come from a human skin cell), different answers would result according to whether you measured the mass or the number of genes.
	Those are the experts who say that the issue exercised their minds.
	I draw attention to the evidence given to the Committee by Professor Robin Lovell-Badge in response to my question, which was:
	In terms of definitions and in terms of inter-species embryos would you want there to be a definition to cover animal chimeras starting with an animal embryo and a set of human cells, whether that should come into the ambit of an inter-species embryo, tetraploid complementation processes and the like
	we will come to that definition
	whether that should be subject to the Bill?
	Dr. Lovell-Badge responded:
	Again, you have got yourself right into a difficult position again because it is very hard to come up with any strict definition saying this is 50 per cent. human and 50 per cent. animal, therefore it falls into this category rather than this one, because things change as well. You may start off with an embryo which is 20 per cent. human and end up with something which is 60 per cent. human or vice versa.
	The challenge from the Minister to provide further clarity of the scope of the definition of what is animal, what is human and what should be subject to regulation is surely put to the test by the very nature of the subject. We must ask ourselves a serious question about clause 4whether it contains the definitions needed for the public to understand, for us to understand and for the scientists to work with.
	The subject of amendment No. 47 is the case of embryos created by a process called tetraploid complementation. If the results were to be the same in experimentation with human-animal embryos as they are with mice, the potential exists for the embryos to end up completely or almost completely human. In tetraploid complementation, pluripotent stem cells are combined with an embryo that has been altered in such a way that the cells in the embryo have double the number of chromosomes. The cells are then tetraploid and develop into an extra-embryonic tissue such as placenta, while the pluripotent stem cells develop into the foetus. However, this specific class of embryos would not fall within the ambit of the Bill. That is the issue that my amendment seeks to address.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend has been demonstrating how complex these questions are. Is it not true that one has a simple question to ask as wellthat is, what would the general public, on whichever side they happen to be, expect us to do in trying to deal with these questions? Would they not expect us to make sure that the examples that my hon. Friend has given came within the ambit of the legislation and did not fall outside? That is how they would understand, as well as they could, the very detailed arguments that he puts forward.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is the least the public would expect of us. They may or may not agree with the principles and the practical results, but at the very least they would expect the Bill to cover researched examples of animal-human embryos. It is important that we do not leave that to a foolproof clause regulating future embryo research.
	In tetraploid complementation, pluripotent stem cells are combined with an embryo that has been altered in such a way that the terms of Bill would not properly apply. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 those embryos could be legally implanted into an animal and taken up to mid-gestation without requiring a Home Office licence for the research projectit is this part of the process that causes concern and is not subject to proper regulationother than an implementation licence, which is an unrelated animal welfare issue.
	That goes against the principles behind clause 4 as described by the noble Lord Darzi in the other place. Those principles are also reflected in the new sub-paragraph (e) which is intended, as the Minister said, to capture all hybrid embryos in which human DNA is predominant. The embryos that I am describing would be similar to the type of chimeric embryos described in section 4A(6)(d) of the 1990 Act. They would be, as defined in the Bill, a mixture of human and animal cells, rather than transgenic embryos or cloned embryos. However, they would remain outside regulation, and I shall spend a few minutes explaining why they would fall outside the ambit of the Bill.
	First, the chimeric embryos referred to in section 4A(6)(d) are human embryos to which animal cells are added. However, the chimeric embryos in the example that I am putting forward would be animal embryos to which human cells were added. As confirmed by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in a written answer on 25 June 2007, they would not be captured by sub-paragraph (d). Lord Hunt stated:
	Chimera embryos created by the addition of human cells to an animal embryo are not within the regulatory framework set out in the draft Bill. These chimeras, made using animal embryos, are regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at such time as they become a protected animal under that Act. Any embryos not considered to be a protected animal do not come within the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. [ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 June 2007; Vol. 693, c. WA101.]
	The second reason why there is a need for amendment No. 47 is that the chimeric embryos that I am describing would not be captured by new sub-paragraph (e), as embryos created by tetraploid complementation would start as predominantly animal, with very little human DNA contribution. They may develop to have predominantly human DNA only after the first 14 days of development. In the examples that the eminent experts discussed in the Joint Committee, the human or animal definitions could not easily be applied.
	This argument may seem to have no relevance to the Bill. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), with whom I have debated the matter on many occasions, may suggest that. However, since those embryos would fall under animal legislation, the 14-day rule and the no-implantation rule, which I concede are in the Bill, would not apply, so the embryos would not be permitted to be implanted into an animal womb. Thus, their development would continue to the stage where human DNA would potentially overwhelmingly predominate in the developing foetus.
	The third reason is that although clause 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 bans the implantation of an entirely human embryo in an animalwe would all unite and agree on thatand, as we know, the ban is retained in the Bill, if an embryo created by the mechanism of tetraploid complementation were to be implanted, it would not be entirely human at that stage. That is the crucial issue. At the pre-implantation stage it would be defined as not human, and it would not fall within the remit of the Bill. It would then supposedly come under the auspices of animal legislation. My point is that it would not; it would tend to be unregulated. Even if the particular embryo were subsequently to develop into an entirely human embryo, it would escape the ban. That is why the issue is crucial.

Evan Harris: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. Will he explain whether it is his understanding that if such an entity were implanted into animal, a licence would be required from the Animal Procedures Committee?

David Burrowes: I am grateful for that intervention. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall come shortly to the issue of the licence.
	The fourth reason for the amendment is that proposed new section 4A(4) bans the implantation of human admixed embryos in an animal. Since the embryos in question are not defined as human admixed under current definitions in the Bill, implantation into an animal could not be banned under clause 4. The embryos would thus fall under animal legislation, potentially allowing a human foetus with an animal placenta to develop in an animal womb up to mid-gestation, without the requirementthis relates to what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon saidto obtain a research licence from the Home Office. The research project would require a licence only if the research was intended to take the foetus beyond mid-gestation. If that was the intention, a licence would be required.
	The difference, as I understand it, between requiring a licence for a research project and requiring one for implantation is an unrelated animal welfare issuenot something that falls within the intention of animal legislation. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon knows, animal legislation is designed to ensure that animals are not butchered by incompetent or uncaring technicians or researchers who do not know what they are doing or do not care if animals suffer unnecessarily. In relevant cases, the researchers would need an implantation licence because the animal to be implanted would be classified as a protected animal. That is the crucial issue. In my example, the foetus developing inside would be an unprotected animal until mid-gestation. That is the gap that I am seeking to plug. Hence a licence would not be required for the research project unless the intention was to develop the foetus beyond mid-gestation. That might sound like a far-fetched scenario; some may even say that it is a science-fiction scenario.

Robert Flello: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is referring to mid-gestation in the species into which the implant has been made?

David Burrowes: Let me give an example. The procedure has been used in mice since the early 1990s, and it is routinely used to make entire mice from embryonic stem cells, which are being aggregated with tetraploid embryos. When used in this way, the procedure is considered a gold standard for testing, where researchers have isolated genuine, fully functional embryonic stem cells to make every cell type in the body rather than just many cell types. Since the tetraploid cells would make tissue outside the embryo, such as placenta, the inserted embryonic stem cells would have to make every cell type in the animal. If anyone is interested, I have research papers here on that very procedure.
	Currently, researchers use a far less rigorous type of test for human embryonic stem cells. It is called the teratoma test, as was mentioned earlier. Teratomas are a specific type of tumour generated by embryonic stem cells, which consist of various stem cell types. However, it is a much less comprehensive test than tetraploid complementation, since relatively few cell types are generated in this way.

Dawn Primarolo: I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. His basic argument relates to something falling outside the current prohibitions in the Bill. However, does he not agree that the definition of human admixed embryos, already discussed in the House, covers tetraploid complementation so that the Bill's prohibitions would apply? The embryos could not therefore be placed into an animal, which is the fear that he is expressing. The Bill therefore deals with the problem.

David Burrowes: It will probably not surprise the Minister to hear that during the 20 or so minutes of my speech, I have been seeking to make the very point that the definitions are not covered, which is why we need amendment No. 47 to plug the gap. That follows on from the relationship with animal legislation [Interruption.] The Minister may well like to talk rather than listen to my response, but this issue should not be taken for granted. This research and testing is taking place, and the issue of the mid-gestation period, which presently falls within the ambit of the Home Office and animal legislation, needs to be dealt with properly at this stage, through the opportunity presented by the Bill. That is important as we seek to define human admixed embryos and to deal with regulation in respect of animal-human embryos.

John Gummer: If we assume that the Minister is right, it must be perfectly reasonable to agree with my hon. Friend as well. All he is doing is ensuring that those who fear that the Minister may not be right can be reassured by his amendment. If the Minister is right, she must be able to accept his amendment, because she has suggested that its content is already in her Bill. It seems to me that this is an opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to agree. If, on the other hand, the Minister does not really want this provision, she is trying to avoid the strength of my hon. Friend's amendment by suggesting that everything is all right anyway.

David Burrowes: As always, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I want to be reassured by the Minister telling me that tetraploid complementation is fully covered by the definitions in the Bill, but according to a written answer given by Lord Hunt, that type of chimeric embryo is not covered. He said at one point that the position following mid-gestation is covered by animal legislation, but before he had said that it was not, so there is a discrepancy. I hope to be assured that all these matters will be fully covered by regulation under the Bill, but if they will not be, as I believe, all Members should unite in supporting amendment No. 47.
	During a public hearing on hybrids and chimeras on 31 January 2007, of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I was not a member, although I note that others present were, it was stated that a number of scientists had informed the Committee that at some point researchers might wish to go beyond the teratoma test and generate chimeras to demonstrate totipotency and pluripotencyMembers are nodding, which suggests that they remember that commentusing human embryonic stem cells, which would clearly involve breaching the 14-day and no-implantation rules, to which we all hold. It was pointed out that that would apply to adult as well as embryonic stem cells.
	The Committee also heard from Professor Blakemore, who gave evidence on 5 February 2007. In answer to questions 234, 239 and 265, he said that some scientists would eventually wish to test the multipotency of human adult stem cells and also induced pluripotent stem cellswhich, as many Members know, are derived from ordinary adult cells, and which many of us believe hold great prospects for the futureby inserting them into the blastocyst of an animal embryo, implanting them and allowing them to develop. Professor Blakemore suggested that those chimeras could be allowed to develop
	to the point of organogenesis,
	although not to term. At a public hearing of the Joint Committee on the Bill on 20 June 2007, Dr. Stephen Minger said in answer to question 646 that scientists would soon want to
	take human embryonic stem cells, insert them into a primate blastocyst and take that blastocyst to midgestation or maybe to birth, or maybe to ten years of age.
	There is no indication that any of those scientists had tetraploid complementation in mind, although the creation of chimeric embryos to test totipotency, not just pluripotency, may indicate that it had been considered by one or two researchers. However, the scientists may have been referring to a very similar procedure whereby embryonic stem cells are inserted into normal diploid embryos rather than tetraploid embryos. In such cases, the resultant human-animal chimeric foetuses, or creatures, would contain various proportions of cells from both species. Many of us agree that that carries great concerns of its ownfor example, the potential development of human gametes or of a large proportion of human brain cells in an animal. However, as the Bill is currently drafted, both those types of chimera would fall within the more permissive animal legislation. I therefore ask the Minister to consider very carefully why there should not be legislation containing proper, clearer definitions.
	Amendment No. 47 is restricted to dealing with tetraploid complementation.

Evan Harris: I am still a little confused, because there are two issues here. First, is the tetraploid complement embryo actually human at the point at which the hon. Gentleman envisages it would be implanted, bearing in mind that the embryo itself does not include the animal-derived trophectoderm that forms the placenta, in which case the Minister is right and it would be covered? I see the Minister nodding. In any event, does the hon. Gentleman accept that in order for appropriate implantation, there would have to be a close species match? Would that not require a licence from the Animal Procedures Committee that it would be extremely unlikely to give? Is not the hon. Gentleman's amendment therefore unnecessary in both those cases?

David Burrowes: As always, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention and for his expertise in this matter. However, he raises the question of whether the embryo would be human, but as he has heard during questions to the experts, they themselves have not been able to agree on that. They have said that there is not a defined point, and they have talked in vice-versa terms on the issue of going from human to animal. When one follows through this process within the ambit of animal legislation, it is apparent that at the time before mid-gestation there is potential for the process to be unregulated, unless a licence has been applied for where there is an intention to go beyond mid-gestation point. There is a gap that I feel needs to be properly plugged, at the very least for the reassurance that we have it covered. After all, everyone is concerned that all forms of animal and human embryo that we are aware of should be properly covered.

Ann Widdecombe: Is this not fairly simple? There is not a scientific consensus on the definition. There is, therefore, not a consensus among practitioners, and if there is no consensus on the definition, the Minister cannot rely on the definition in the Bill unless it is fully clarified.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comments. Similar points were made in the other place. It is absolutely crucial that, at this late stage, we can have clear definitions. This issue has been raised by the media. Reference has been made to the media being dominated by the issue of abortion, but there have been other debates as well, and awareness of the issues has grown. Many of us are concerned that the awareness of stem-cell therapy should lead to greater support for, and investment in, adult stem-cell therapy that is producing the treatments that we all want.
	Earlier this year,  The Independent reported that a senior cloning scientist, Dr. Lanza, had warned that some might wish to use tetraploid complementation to create cloned babies by inserting human-induced pluripotent stem cells into human tetraploid embryos. It was reported that he had said that
	studies on mice have shown that it is possible to produce fully cloned offspring that are 100 per cent. genetically identical to the adult. This was achieved by using a type of defective mouse embryo with four sets of chromosomes instead of the normal two.
	This 'tetraploid' embryo only developed into the placenta of the foetus and when it was injected with a reprogrammed skin cell, the rest of the foetus developed from this single cell to become a full clone of the adult animal whose skin was used.
	None of the scientists working on cell reprogramming to produce induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cellsas the embryonic cells are knownplan to use it for human reproductive medicine. Their main aim is to produce (iPS) stem cells (from adult cells) for the therapeutic treatment of conditions such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and stroke.
	We note the great progress made in that regard.
	 The Independent stated that
	Dr Lanza said that the mouse experiments his company had done demonstrated how easily the technology could be used to produce cloned or chimeric babies,
	and he went on to say that we are opening up a can of worms. We want to close that can of worms and ensure that the gap created is properly plugged. Dr. Lanza said that the technology
	could be used to produce cloned or chimeric babies by inserting iPS cells into early human embryos. This is not banned in many countries, where legislation has not kept pace with scientific developments.
	He also said:
	In addition to the great therapeutic promise demonstrated by this technology, the same technology opens a whole new can of worms.

Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that he is talking about scientists opening a can of worms by developing the technology, while the Bill will close a can of worms by regulating and limiting exactly the things that he is talking about? My right hon. Friend the Minister has assured us of that.

David Burrowes: The purpose of my amendment No. 47 is to deal with the can of worms that is already out there. It is not science fiction about a theoretical area of research. The matter needs to be properly regulated and defined, and it is currently not. That is the purpose of the amendment, for which I seek the Government's support.

John Gummer: If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) is right, is it not true that all she need do is support the amendment, because it merely reinforces what the Government have done? If she is wrong, we will want to support the amendment to see that the hole is plugged. Surely we do not need to have this argument, because it is so obvious that both sides agree.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose repetition of the point makes it ever better and more compelling. It is important that the Minister deals with the issue. The response in the other place was, Well, we have a foolproof guarantee; we will ensure that we cover new forms through regulation and powers. However, the reality is that we have a gap, and for the sake of reassurance and ensuring that we have a comprehensive definition, the amendment should be accepted.

Peter Bone: I am following with great interest my hon. Friend's speech, which shows his great knowledge on the subject. Is it not correct that if we pass the Bill as it is, we will rely on secondary legislation to protect us? The protection against reproductive cloning should be in primary legislation.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the pointwe need to be clear in primary legislation.

Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burrowes: No, I shall make a bit more progress now.
	Human-human chimeric embryos will be banned under clause 3, but the issue to consider is the definition of what is animal and what is human in the tetraploid complementation process. The amendment would close up a legal loophole between the Bill and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It would ensure that chimeric embryos created by tetraploid complementation that had the potential to result in a completely or almost completely human foetus with an animal placenta would not come under animal legislation, and would therefore not be allowed to develop inside an animal womb.
	One need only examine research and journals, as many will already have done, not least the 2007 article by Professor Jaenisch in  Science, to see that the injection of IPS cells into tetraploid embryos needs to be addressed properly. The amendment would bring those embryos within the ambit of the Bill, preventing them from being developed beyond 14 days or from being implanted. It is important to establish that prohibition in primary legislation, and it is consistent with the Government's intentions throughout the Bill.
	This issue should not divide those who are in favour of using embryonic stem cells and those who are against it. It is an altogether separate matter, and I hope that hon. Members can see that it potentially applies equally to adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. The Government's position is that they do not want to permit the implantation of embryos, to use the noble Lord Darzi's phrase,
	at the human end of the spectrum.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 2008; Vol. 698, c. 854.]
	As the Bill is intended cover all such embryos, I hope that all Members will join me in supporting amendment No. 47, which would close a rather unusual and technical but extremely important loophole on the definitions of what is human and what is animal. It would ensure that there is clarity in the Bill.

Nadine Dorries: I rise to support new clause 24 and amendment No. 50. In my opinion, the issues that they deal with are serious, sinister and ultimately ridiculous. Members of the general public listening to this debate might find it difficult to understand what we are discussing, and I should like to begin by making it clear which issue the new clause and amendment are trying to resolve. If the Bill as it stands is passed, it will allow the insemination of human gametes into an animalthat is, the insemination of human sperm into an animal. I find it difficult, as many members of the public doubtless will, to understand why the Bill is allowing this to take place, as it would be incredibly simple for a clause to be inserted prohibiting this, as was said.
	The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) described how the Bill completely fails to prohibit the placing of human gametes in an animal, and has questioned why we cannot address this issue. Given that the Bill has been put together so inefficiently, perhaps we should be thankful that the Government have been alert enough to prohibit the insertion of an admixed embryo into an animal, and the placement of non-human gametes in a woman. What have the Government been playing at, given that this loophole was pointed out to them a long time ago? What would it take for them to make this amendment? Why do we need to deal with an issue so basic, and which has been pointed out so frequently to the Government?
	Of all the experimental possibilities debated during consideration of the Bill, surely none is quite as utterly repulsive as seeking to inseminate animals with human sperm. Yet despite all the Government's fervent assurances about safeguards and regulations, this procedure remains entirely untouched by the Bill's prohibitions. The Department of Health has argued that the insemination of animals with human sperm could never lead to a viable foetus. How can it know? Surely the nature of science and scientists is that they are incredibly experimental and inquisitive and constantly attempting to push back the barriers. How do we know what this would lead to in one, five or 10 years' time?

William Cash: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that when we debated the Warnock report in 1984, I drew attention to this very question. Of course, I was treated with complete ridicule and contempt, because it was regarded as ridiculous nonsense that anyone would try to do this. However, I had read articles in obscure journals in the Californian medical field indicating that scientists were doing exactly the experiments that my hon. Friend has described.

Nadine Dorries: I thank my hon. Friend for illustrating the point far better than I could. Who would have thought only a few years ago that attempts would be made in an underground tunnel in Switzerland to re-create the big bang? That is happening today, but we would have thought it ridiculous a few years agothat it would not be possible. However, as I said, the Department of Health is arguing that the insemination of animals with human sperm could never lead to a viable foetus, and that therefore there is no need to legislate. It is just not an issue, the Department says. I think that it is a huge issue, as do many people.
	The hon. Member for Southport asked what our constituents will think of us when we shuffle through the Lobby today to vote for some of the Bill's provisions. I would find it very difficult to justify to my constituents why I had voted to allow human sperm to be inseminated into an animal. If a constituent asked me Why did you do that? I would find it very difficult to explain my motives. When a Bill purporting, as we heard the Minister say today, to set global standards of regulatory efficiency fails to mark out such a fundamental ethical boundary, that is a very serious matter indeed. Moreover, it is a sinister matter.

Sally Keeble: Does clause 4(2)(a) not exclude what the hon. Lady is talking about, because human gametes would be mixed with animal gametes?

Nadine Dorries: That does not excuse the situation at all. The provision to which the hon. Lady refers prohibits the placement of a human admixed embryo in an animal and the placement of non-human embryos or gametes in a woman, but it does not prevent human gametes from being implanted into an animal.

Sally Keeble: indicated dissent.

Nadine Dorries: If the hon. Lady wishes to argue that point, perhaps she would like to make her own speech.

John Gummer: Do we not come back to exactly the same thing? If the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) is right, it does not matter if we repeat things. If she is wrong, it does matter that we say so. Some in this Chamber want to include in this Bill something that is not explicit, so we need to insist on the amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) is referring.

Nadine Dorries: I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification. I wish to ask the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) why we should not clearly state in the Bill that it prohibits the insemination of human sperm into an animal. What is the problem with including such a provision in the Bill?  [Interruption.] No, the Bill prevents things from happening the other way round, but, as I said, the hon. Lady can make that speech herself.

Mark Durkan: The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) made was raised in error, because the new subsection to which she referred does not ban the activity she mentions, but licenses it. It would be banned
	except in pursuance of a licence.
	Those were the words that she failed to mention. The new subsection states in full:
	 No person shall
	(a) mix human gametes with animal gametes,
	(b) bring about the creation of a human admixed embryo, or
	(c) keep or use a human admixed embryo,
	except in pursuance of a licence.
	It licenses the very activity that my hon. Friend is trying to say is not permitted by the Bill.

Nadine Dorries: That makes my point even more coherently for me. Perhaps we need to legislate to ensure that this activity cannot happen even in pursuance of a licence. I cannot believe that anybody in this House believes that inserting human sperm into an animal would be a good thing to do, so why do we not clearly state in the Bill that it will not be allowed to happen? This argument is not a surprise to the Government, because it has been pointed out over and over again that the Bill would allow this activity to take place in the seeking of a licence. One has to ask why they have not addressed the issue.
	This is a sinister matter, because of the connotations. It is impossible to discuss insemination of animals with human gametes for very long without considering the infamous Soviet hybridisation trials of the 1920s. There are a huge number of historians on the Conservative BenchesI do not know how many there are on the Labour Benchesand one of the great pleasures for me, since becoming an MP, has been listening to some of those amazing and learned historians. I am sure that they will forgive me if I get anything wrong in the following paragraph.
	At that time, the Soviet authorities were struggling to rebuild Stalin's red army after it had suffered many deaths and huge defeats. Stalin told his top scientist, Ilya lvanov, to turn his skills to breeding an ultimate soldier by crossing human beings with apes. Stalin told him to breed a soldier who would not be fussy about what he ate, who did not feel pain and who was invincible. Stalin told Ivanov to use all his scientific knowledge and know-how to cross apes with humans and breed that soldier for him.
	Many people in this House might think that it is ridiculous my even mentioning what Stalin did in the 1920s, but his ideas found credence among many in the scientific community and even became quite popular among evolutionary biologists in America; as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, the idea that perhaps we could cross humans with apes and thus have almost a humanzee took root.

Jim Devine: The hon. Lady does her case no favours when she goes down this hysterical line. Over the past few weeks, we have celebrated the 10,000th birth of an in vitro fertilisation baby. If she reads the  Hansard record from the time when IVF was being introduced to this place, she will see that the debate was exactly the same. It was about breeding animals, hybrids and everything else. We should stick to the debate and the issues, and hon. Members should stop being hysterical.

Nadine Dorries: I am terribly sorry, but it is historical not hysterical. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to rewrite the history books and what happened in that era, he is at liberty to do so, but I am citing factual history. Stalin said that he wanted an invincible human being, insensitive to pain and indifferent to the quality of food he ate. That is what his scientists went off to do, and that is what took root in scientific thought in much of the western world in the 1920s.
	In Ivanov's proposed research, there was never any consideration of the potential ethical problems of such experiments. Far from condemning his proposals, Ivanov's western colleagues and patrons were fascinated by themand that is the point that I am trying to make. The Department of Health says that what we do today will never be abused or subject to experimentation in the future, but I would not be so sure. By their very nature, thank goodness, scientists push back the boundaries of research, and they may decide to see what would happen if they put human gametes into animals. They may see that as a valuable line of research.

William Cash: Would my hon. Friend be interested to learn that the United States had a commission to study ethical problems in medicine in 1982, and in its report Splicing Life it called into question the issue of human-animal hybrids? It asked whether genetic engineering could be used to develop a group of virtual slaves, partly human, partly lower animal, to do people's bidding, so that is not as fanciful as some Labour Members seem to think.

Nadine Dorries: I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable intervention.
	I am not for one moment suggesting that the Government intend to follow the example of Stalin in the 1920s. I am not suggesting that they will select a team of experts and dispatch it to inseminate chimpanzee females with human sperm to obtain, if possible, a hybrid of the two species. I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to do that. However, let me point out several important comparisons with the Soviet experiments.
	Ivanov's experiments were legal. I suppose that should hardly surprise ushe was working under one of the most brutal totalitarian regimes the world has ever known, at the personal behest of one of history's bloodiest dictators. He was allowed to experiment with humans and chimpanzees. Soviet scientists had precious few personal freedoms in the 1920sthey could not buy their own homes or shop for the food that they wantedbut they enjoyed the legal freedom to carry out experiments involving placing human gametes in animals.
	Such was life in Stalinist Russia, but of course no enlightened 21st-century western democracy would ever countenance allowing such things in law. Of course it would not, because its Government would ensure that they learned a key lesson from history and what happened in the 1920s, and would legislate to ensure that it could not and would not happen again. I am using the example of those 1920s experiments to say that that is what we should do today. We should legislate today to ensure that such experiments will never be legal.
	The Department of Health insists that inseminating chimpanzees with human sperm could never produce hybrid offspring, and therefore no scientist would ever try, but the Ivanov episode shows that there is just enough hypothetical possibility in such a proposal to entice a certain kind of scientist. The chromosomal differences between some animals that can matesuch as goats and sheepis greater than between humans and chimpanzees. There has been reference to a press article in which scientists speculated whether inseminating chimps with human sperm could produce offspring, and predicted that were it legal, some of their less squeamish colleagues were bound to try it. So we actually have members of the scientific community saying that if this is allowed to go through today, some of their colleagues will try it. The scientists are saying that themselves

Jim Devine: Rubbish.

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Gentleman is shouting Rubbish from a sedentary position. He is not saying that I am talking rubbish, but that the scientific community is talking rubbish. There are those in the scientific community who have said that their colleagues will try to use this loophole if it is allowed to remain in the Bill. It is not I who say that, but the scientific community.
	Members of the scientific community said that some of their less squeamish colleagues were bound to try to insert human sperm into an animal. The reporter was even able to find a professor of applied philosophy at a UK university who claimed to see no ethical objections to the creation of humanzees. A professor in a UK university used that terminology! The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) can shake his head as much as he wants. I despair to think that a scientist would believe there were no ethical objections to such behaviour. Like many people, I applaud scientists for their inquisitive nature. Thank goodness they exist and experiment constantly. However, the role of the House, the Government and Parliament is to legislate to curb that enthusiasm and that inquisitive nature. That is why the Bill should and must close the loophole to protect us all from the creation of humanzees, as the professor calls them.
	When it comes to placing a human admixed embryo into an animal or of a non-human embryo or gametes into a woman, the Government have taken the wise steps of ensuring that such procedures remain strictly hypothetical, because they are banned by law. If the placement of non-human embryos or gametes into a woman is to be prohibited by the Bill, why are we allowing this loophole to go through? Whether there are any budding Ivanovs working in Britain's research facilities becomes irrelevant if new clause 24 and amendment No. 50 are passed. For that reason, I hope that the House will have the opportunity to divide on them.
	In conclusion, I cannot help reflecting on the farcical nature of the topic under discussion. We are in the midst of the remaining stages of what is supposed to be benchmark legislation of impeccable ethical and technological integrity, but Members such as I have to support a new clause as basic and ethically uncomplicated as the one before us. Plenty of intricate and huge ethical issues are as yet not satisfactorily resolved in the Billthe subject of saviour siblings will not even reach the light of day. How ludicrous it is, in those circumstances, that we are debating the placing of human sperm into an animal. How absurd it is that the Government, by failing to close the loophole, have allowed themselves to stand shamed by direct comparison with the most distasteful ethical excesses of Stalin's Russia.
	I thank the hon. Member for Southport for his good sense in tabling new clause 24 and supporting amendment No. 50. I hope that I have the opportunity to vote on them in due course.

Kevin Barron: I rise, briefly, to speak against new clause 24 and amendments Nos. 50 and 47. I was involved with the 1990 Act when it came through the House, and I sat through the first two and a half hours of the debate thinking that things had moved on in some areas. The presentation that we have just had from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) has knocked me back 17 years in terms of how we compare modern-day science and get it into context. As legislators, we have a responsibility to do that.
	Comparisons to Stalin's Russia and to what Hitler did have never helped this debate from a scientific point of view in the years that I have been a Member of this Houseincluding in debates on private Members' Bills and other legislation. Saying that the scientific community is on one side or another is not a helpful case. If there are two scientists in a room, they are likely to hold three different opinions. In a sense, it is the same with politicians. Over the years, I have listened to many scientists give evidence to the Health Committee, and other Select Committees also sometimes call in eminent scientists to put their arguments. However, we must accept that there will never be a consensus among scientists.

Nadine Dorries: If it is well known that scientists never agree, does not the onus then fall on Parliament to ensure that there are no loopholes in legislation? The law must provide the boundaries that scientists who disagree with each other cannot cross.

Kevin Barron: I was about to explain why I oppose amendments Nos. 47 and 50 and new clause 24. Earlier, I intervened on the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who is not in his place at the moment. In the past 48 hours, all hon. Members will have received a short briefing from the Medical Research Council. The text was agreed by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Wellcome Trust and the MRC itself. There is a consensus on different issues among those organisations that we, as legislators, have accepted for many years. I know that various hon. Members have sat on some of those bodies, as lay or other members, and that they have brought their experience back to the House. We have a duty to recognise what the collective voice of the scientific community says about different pieces of legislation.
	The scientific community has said that it believes that the two amendments and the new clause to which I have referred should be rejected. I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State thinks about that recommendationwe will have to wait and seebut I am happier to accept the advice in that brief than the advice in some of the other briefs that have been read out in this debate. I would not always accept the argument put forward by these organisations, but I shall briefly explain why I accept it today.
	The brief states:
	We oppose the amendments which would have the effect of limiting valuable research which can be undertaken using human gametes in animals...While we recognise that gametes are special, in that they are cells involved in reproduction, the reasons for studying human gametes in the context of an animal is to learn more about how gametes develop and function.
	Many reasons are given in debates such as this for looking at different areas of research, but the briefing note says that this particular research
	is important in the study of male infertility.
	Time constraints today mean that we will not be able to discuss male infertility, but it remains a major issue in society. I have been very lucky in my life to be able to have children and grandchildren without ever having to worry about whether I could be a father, but many of our constituents go through the torture of infertility. Some of them, unfortunately, find it hard to afford treatment in the private sector, and Ministers will know that over the years I have spoken about the deficiencies of NHS infertility provision. However, the most important thing is that scientists should continue their research into these matters, as that is how they can help citizens who have not been as lucky as I have been when it comes to having a family.

Evan Harris: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Another example of the sort of research to which he has referred is the process by which ovarian tissue, for example, is engrafted on to an animal and then tested for the effects of chemotherapy. That is impossibleor at least very difficultto do in vitro, without that sort of animal model. For good reasons, the Bill defines gametes as cells in the ovary or the testes at any stage in their development, including their very early stages. That is why banning the placement of human gametes in animals would prevent research, currently being done in this country, that involves research into the effect of chemotherapy on those cells' development. Clearly, that research would play into the issue of infertility.

Kevin Barron: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Obviously, with the professional knowledge that he gained before he came to this place, he has a deep understanding of the scientific complexities and the need for these procedures.
	The briefing from the scientific community continues:
	Research of this nature is sufficiently regulated under existing human and animal legislation, and the creation of 'human admixed embryos' is already covered under licence provisions. Procedures directly involving animals are already licensed by the Home Office and therefore do not need to be covered by this Bill.
	I am quite prepared to support that collective voice of science and scientific researchers in this country and reject new clause 25 and amendment No. 50, and I would urge the House to do the same.
	I move on briefly to amendment No. 47. Several hon. Members intervened on the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), who admitted in one of his early utterances that the science is complex. Indeed it is. He then went on at great length just to give us an example of how complex it is, and I am grateful that he did. If I may say so, we have here a conflict with what the scientific community think about the effect of amendment No. 47. I will wait to hear what the Minister says. The Government believe that the intended effect of the amendment is covered by clause 4 as it stands. I will not enter into a dispute about that with Ministers, although other hon. Members have been prepared to do so this afternoon.

Iain Duncan Smith: If, however, it turned out from the right hon. Gentleman's own standpoint that the argument being advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) was correct, and that the Government's protection in this case was not enough, would he be minded to support amendment No. 47?

Kevin Barron: When I first stood up, I said that I was minded not to support it, because of the scientific voice that expressed itself in the briefing that was sent to us and to other legislators from those four eminent areas of science. I was half hoping that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has held high office in the House and must have taken many Bills through Parliament, would tell us whether, as a Minister, he ever accepted an amendment from anybody on the basis that the content of the amendment was in the Bill anyway, and it would just strengthen that message. I am not too sure about that.

John Gummer: indicated assent.

Kevin Barron: Well, he should tell me if he has.

John Gummer: The question before us is such that I do believe that I would have accepted such an amendment on it, for this reason. If there is a sufficiency of concern about a matter as serious as thiswhich in my case has been increased by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who would not give an affirmative answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)then I would, as a Minister, wish to make it clear that the Government whom I represented were against the kind of cloning that we are talking about. Therefore I would of course have received and accepted such an amendment.

Kevin Barron: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman actually held any health portfolios, but that is a very brave thing for an ex-Minister to say from the Back Benches. I have never heard a Minister advocate that from the Treasury Bench in response to such a suggestion. I served on the Opposition Front Bench for many years, and did not get that type of acceptance for anything.
	On that point, it is clear that the scientific community whose brief I quoted is happy with the situation. It is covered by regulation anyway.
	On Second Readingit seems such a long time agoI said that the 1990 Act was not especially descriptive. There was no consensus outside or inside the House on many areas, so things were left out of that Act that people thought, rightly or wrongly, should have been in the legislation.
	As I said on Second Reading, the 1990 Act has served this country and Parliament well, because it has allowed an open-minded approach and has supported the areas that have been difficult to debate on the Floor of the House. Support has been given by regulations and regulatory bodies such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I am confident in saying, both in the House and in my constituency, that we as legislators have a duty to bring about this way of improving medical science and research into such scientifically complex areas. However, we also have a duty to ensure that our regulations may cover any areas in which we are concerned that something could happen in the future so that if something does happen, regulations can take care of it.

Edward Leigh: I support amendment No. 41, to which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) ably spoke, and which is the only amendment in the group that deals with a most significant ethical issue. Proposed new section 3ZA(5) of the 1990 Act constitutes a significant drafting error. When the Minister responds to the debate, I will be grateful if she addresses that error, which could undermine the very principle that the Government have always insisted is fundamental to the Bill: strict and comprehensive regulation.
	Subsections (2) to (4) of proposed new section 3ZA say that there can be no alteration of the nuclear and/or mitochondrial DNA of a permitted egg, sperm or embryo. They say that eggs must have been
	produced by or extracted from...ovaries
	and sperm
	produced by or extracted from...testes.
	They say that an embryo may not have other cells added that are not the embryo's own cells, and that an embryo must have been created by fertilisation. So far, so good; one would think that the provisions were pretty clearly written.
	Proposed new section 3ZA(5), however, could overturn every one of those safeguards. It says that to
	prevent the transmission of...mitochondrial disease,
	regulations could make provision for permitted eggs and embryos that had had alterations to their nuclear and/or mitochondrial DNA, and need not have been created by fertilisation. Permitted eggs might not need to have been obtained from ovaries, nor sperm from testes, and permitted eggs and embryos might be allowed to be created using material from two women, and to have other cells added to them that were not the embryo's own cells.
	This is not a narrow, technical drafting point. When one reads the two sets of provisions, an important hole opens up in the Bill. Proposed new section 3ZA(5) could, albeit in particular circumstances and subject to secondary legislationI shall come to that in a momentcompletely undermine every one of the stringent safeguards built into subsections (2) to (4) of the proposed new section, which are clear provisions that should reassure anyone reading the Bill.
	This is important because clause 3(6) repeals the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, which established the United Kingdom's complete ban on human reproductive cloning. If there is one thing on which all hon. Members agree, it is that we want the ban on human reproductive cloning to continue.
	If we provide for regulations that would allow any method of preventing
	the transmission of...mitochondrial disease
	that is in proposed new section 3ZA(5), which I read outwe could create a loophole, through which a human reproductive cloning procedure could become permissible in law. Given how important this matter is, I am not sure whether that loophole should exist.
	The regulations, which would have the stated aim of avoiding the transmission of mitochondrial disease, could allow the nucleus of any cell from a parent with diseased mitochondria to be placed in a donated egg. The resulting child would be a clone. In one instant, the United Kingdom would move from having a clear ban on human reproductive cloning in primary legislationwe have had such a ban since 2001to having the option to permit a form, albeit only a form, of reproductive cloning. And that would happen through secondary legislation. In other words, the Government would not have to come back to the House with primary legislation.
	As I understand itof course, when the Minister sums up, she can reassure me on this pointthe clear ban on human reproductive cloning in the 2001 Act is being replaced by an ambiguous situation in which the Secretary of State has power to introduce a form of reproductive cloning by regulation if he or she so desires. Given that we have waited 20 years for the Bill, and that we will almost certainly have to wait another 20 for the next, that is a dangerous situation.
	In their initial review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the Government stated that they
	did not intend to reopen debate on those fundamental aspects of the law that are widely accepted in our society or which have been recently debated and conclusively resolved in Parliament. These include the...prohibition of human reproductive cloning.
	In another place recently, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Darzi, restated the Government's commitment to a ban on human reproductive cloning and claimed that the Bill
	maintains this position while superseding the provisions of the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. WA11.]
	That was the claim, but clearlywithout the 2001 Act, which was clear, and under proposed new section 3ZA(5)regulations could allow any method of avoiding the transmission of mitochondrial disease, including a method that uses somatic cell nuclear transfer. That is what worries me, and some people outside the House.
	The Government reassure the House that they have no intention of changing their view, and I accept that. I make this concession: I accept that at the moment, the Government have no intention of passing regulations in a form that would open up the loophole and allow the human reproductive cloning ban to be circumvented. However, it would be useful for the Minister to restate that. Section 3ZA(5) grants the same regulation-making power to future Secretaries of State. The Government simply cannot speak for future Secretaries of State; that is why we have primary legislation. If ever the Government want to change their policy in this area, we want them to come back to the Houseto the elected representativesand we want a chance to say, No, we don't want to leave this extraordinarily vital ethical issue in the hands of a future Secretary of State.
	Why is the Secretary of State so sure that secondary legislation initiated under proposed new section 3ZA(5) will close the loophole? Have the regulations been drafted already? Are the Government that far ahead of the game? I suspect not. Perhaps a copy of the regulations could be placed in the Library so that we could read it and have our fears put to rest. I suspect that no copy is available, and that it will not be placed in the Library. I suspect that we will pass the Bill without ever having had a chance to read the regulations. Far better to make sure that any alteration to the human reproductive cloning ban can be made only after the closest scrutiny by the public, and by parliamentarians acting on their behalf, in primary legislation.
	If the Government are serious about maintaining the ban on human reproductive cloning, as they have repeatedly claimedI accept thatwhy should they not support an amendment that enshrines that prohibition in their flagship primary legislation? That would at least be a signal that they could give the many of us who are worried about the Bill. They could make the situation absolutely clear in the Bill, as it was in the 2001 Act, and ensure that the ban could not possibly be tampered with by secondary legislation. Why can we not have that? Perhaps the Government will take this opportunity to state publicly why such an amendment would be detrimental to the spirit and intentions of the Bill. I do not think that it would be. Amendment No. 41 is not a wrecking amendment. It is completely in line with everything that the Government have said. I would have thought that the Minister could support everything that I have said so far.
	If the amendment is not to be regarded as detrimental, surely the Government are prepared to commend it for identifying and rectifying a serious drafting error that threatens to make a mockery of their oft-repeated assurances that the foundational intention of the Bill is the creation of a rigorous regulatory regime encompassing all existent and hypothetical reproductive technologies. We all know that creating such a regime will be very difficult, but there is one issue on which both sides of the argument want absolute assurance from the Minister: there should be no loophole in the Bill through which some form of reproductive cloning could in future emerge. We are entitled to have that assurance from the Government because this ethical area is so vital.
	Amendment No. 41 removes only that which the Government have insisted repeatedly they do not want: a means of permitting a form of human cloning for reproduction. The amendment retains that which the clause is specifically intended to permitmitochondrial donation techniques. Amendment No. 41 also rectifies a further blunder caused by the dangerously loose wording of proposed new section 3ZA(5), which I have read out to the House. In replying, the Minister may wish to explain this problem. By providing for regulations allowing anyI stress, anymethod of preventing the transmission of a mitochondrial disease, 3ZA(5) also opens up the possibility of legally altering human nuclear DNA as a means of preventing future transmission of mitochondrial disease. That, of course, would be germ-line genetic engineeringthat is, human genetic modification. People should be concerned about that.
	Clearly, the only appropriate vehicle for dealing with an issue of such magnitude would be primary legislation; I hope that we can all agree on that. The idea that such a serious issue could be dealt with sufficiently by affirmative resolution is ridiculous. Even the Bill's supporters have acknowledged that a significant problem exists because of the wording of proposed new section 3ZA(5), and that, in overturning the ban on mitochondrial DNA alteration, subject to regulations, the proposed new sectionunintentionally, I acceptoverturns a ban on nuclear DNA alteration. They say that the issue should be dealt with at a later stage. Here we are, at a later stage; in fact, it is the last stage. So far, however, the Government have refused to address the obvious discrepancies in the wording of the proposed new section. The House must rectify the Government's failures by amending that glaring fault in the Bill; that is what amendment No. 41 would do.
	I am going to finish my speech in a moment, but before I do I should apologise for having been somewhat technical. I have had to read out closely what is in the various clauses of the Bill. However, I want to end with my personal view, and why I feel passionately about this issue. At the heart of all the debates on the Bill and of the technical arguments about these amendments appears to lie a point of view that in this country we are treating human embryos as things. I believe that human embryos are emphatically not just blobs of cells; they have the entire genetic make-up of a human being. I believe not that they are potential human beings, but that they are human beings with potential. Of course, they are microscopica grain of sandand that is perhaps why we can view them as a spare part. However, when I thought of them as a microscopic grain of sand, as it wereas something that was not in any way recognisably humanI was reminded of this passage from Dostoevsky, the greatest poet of human nature. In addressing the brothers Karamazov, the prior of the monastery says:
	Love all God's creation, the whole and every grain of sand in it. Love every leaf, every ray of God's light. Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love.
	There is something very dangerous in what we will undoubtedly do today. We are making ourselves less than human, in a sense, by viewing one part of human creation as a thing, a spare part, which I believe is extraordinarily dangerous.

Evan Harris: I was not going to speak in this debate, but the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and those of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) require a brief response.
	First, we have amendment No. 49, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport. It would add the words via cytoplasm to the provisions of clause 3, and it touches on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). The hon. Gentleman is correct: there is no longer an absolute ban in primary legislation on some of the things that the Government clearly intend to ban, because it requires the secondary legislation to be written, as I am sure that it would be, in such a way as to allow only those forms of treatment of mitochondrial disease that are caused by cytoplasmic factors, and only in such a way that there is no breach of the provisions and policies enunciated by the Government, namely that there will be no human reproductive cloning, or germ-line nuclear genetic amendment.
	I have already said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Southport that it would be better for the primary legislation to state what it intends in purest terms. It is unfortunate that the Government have not found a way to do that. I believe that the Government said in Committee that they had tried to draft the legislation so that such practice would be restricted in such a way. I do not see why a phrase such as via cytoplasm or something similar would not be acceptable, at least to narrow the issue. I do not accept for a moment that the current wording opens the door to those things feared by my hon. Friend, but given the battle we have had to get to this stage, in which we have had to overcome people whipping up fear about what might happenwe have heard some rather dismal examples todayit would be better if the legislation were clear. It is unfortunate that it is not, and for that reason, I would support amendment No. 49.
	The second issue relates to new clause 24, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport and others, which would ban the placing of human gametes into an animal. This was dealt with in Committee, thanks to my hon. Friend, and the Minister wrote a letter to him explaining why it is not considered necessary or appropriate to include such a provision. I agree with what the Minister said in that letterI will not go into it because she may be planning to do that. In 1990, it was not considered necessary to include measures in legislation to ban the practice of inserting sperm into animals. That procedure is not part of science, and it is not appropriate for it to be dealt with in the Bill.
	Moreover, valuable science is being done, as the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Association of Medical Research Charities have said, involving the use of early germ-line cells in animal models to explore how they develop in a in-vivo systemin a living system. We cannot do that in humans for all sorts of ethical reasons, but we permit the practice, under tight regulation, in animals. We do so to explore what causes infertility and, for example, what the impact of certain types of chemotherapy might be on infertility. The Bill's drafting means, for good reasons, that gametes includes germ line cells at any stage of their development, including immature germ-line cells found in the ovary and the testes, which are subject to such experiments. One could listbut I will not do sopapers that have been published in peer review journals using such work, and I have no doubt that such work is being done in this country. My hon. Friend's new clause would prevent that work, and he accepted in Committee, on the record, that that would be an unintended consequences of what I describe as an unnecessary step. I hope that the House is reassured that the amendment is unnecessary, but if that does not make the argument, the speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) put the fact that it would be inappropriate beyond any doubt.
	The third point is about the interesting issue that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate raises in amendment No. 47. We must acceptI hope that the Government will accept thisthat it has not been possible to produce an exhaustive list of admixed embryo types. I do not believe that it is possible to do so; indeed, the Academy of Medical Sciences accepts in its paper that it is probably not possible. The Government have made the best attempt that they can and it is only right that we should accept that the list is not guaranteed to be exhaustive.
	The hon. Gentleman's amendment is a good example of some of the debates that we could have, but that is why we have the HFEA. It is there to ensure that scientists understand that there is a need to fall within the regulations where at all possible. I cannot imagine any scientist in this country seeking to identify types that would not come before the HFEA, so that they could argue in a court of law, Well, it's not human enough at the point at which we were seeking to implant it to be covered by the HFEA. That is not how science works.

William Cash: To pursue that line of argument, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that exactly the same kind of argument that he is presenting was presented to me when I suggested that we would move into research into animal-human hybrids? That was 25 years ago, and now we are where we are. Does he recognise that because people have an enormous amount of knowledge, it does not follow that they will not later do things that are unacceptable to society as a whole?

Evan Harris: It is certainly possible, but it is also possible that new primary legislation could be brought before the House if that was felt necessary, as happened over human reproductive cloning. In that case it was felt necessary to reassure the public through primary legislation that something that was not envisaged and not possible would also be illegal. So, we are not in an It's now or nothing situation.
	Let me also deal with the issue of definitions. A huge amount of effort has been put in, especially by Members of the House of Lords and the Government Bill team, to try to find an appropriate definition. A tribute must be paid to Lord Mackay in particular, who has struggled, even though he was not necessarily a huge fan of the legislation to start with, to find a way to deal with the issue. The Government have engaged on the subject and done the best that they feel they can.
	It would not be appropriate for the Government to argueindeed, I hope that the Minister does not arguethat the list is definitive. However, it is as good as one can get while preserving the ability of scientists to do the research in a way that will be regulated. There is no scientist in the country who does not understand that such research will have to apply to the HFEA under one of the categories set out in the Bill.
	There are two potential gaps, one of which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned. Proposed new section 4A(6)(e) talks about an embryo that does not fall within paragraphs (a) to (d) which
	contains both nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of a human and nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of an animal...but in which the animal DNA is not predominant.
	The key question, however, is at what point we are talking about the animal DNA not being pre-dominant, because that could vary. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the scientists pointed that out in evidence to the Committee. That is not a secret, which is why it would be appropriate for the Government not to recognise that the list is not perfect. Indeed, it cannot be perfect, but I argue that it is good enough.
	That is one problem. The second problem is that even if the hon. Gentleman is right that the tetraploidal complementation process that he mentioned falls outwith the provisions, his amendment does not solve the problem. It is quite possible to have complementation that does not involve tetraploid cells. One could inject into a more developed, normal diploid embryo a less developed human embryo, which would then predominate, causing the original embryo to become the extra-embryonic endoderm and the trophectodermthe stuff that forms the placentaas has been done in mice. His amendment does not refer to such an entity, however. So the hon. Gentleman is merely demonstrating that the clause is never going to be perfect, but it is clear that anyone attempting to implant an entity which arguably does not fall within the definition in clause 4 will have to apply for a licence to the animal procedures committee to implant it.
	When I spoke to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber, he conceded, I hope it is fair to say, in answer to my question, that if one created an entity with human cells in an animal envelopeI do not believe that that is likely outside HFEA regulation in any event, for reasons that the Minister will explaina licence would still be needed to implant it into an animal. One cannot just grab a pig from a farm, drag it into a lab and implant something into it without a licence.

John Gummer: As somebody who was responsible for that animal legislation, may I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that animal legislation is designed to protect animals and their welfare. One of our concerns must be, therefore, that it is not reasonable to use that legislation to deal with the problems under discussion. He may be right that that is not necessary, but it does not seem sensible to say that animal legislation of the kind that we have properly covers these circumstances. Surely if we find some gaps in the law, we might deal with those and make the law that much better. There may still be other gaps, but why is he not willing to accept that the gaps that have been identified should be covered now, rather than left to the organisation outside or to secondary legislation?

Evan Harris: I am in almost 100 per cent. agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. It is possible that there are gaps in the definition. I hope the Minister will accept that that is the case and that it is necessary for ongoing work to be done. The academy has indicated a willingness to continue to do that work so that if, down the line, something that is not covered by these definitions is felt to be useful and therefore needs to be covered by the HFEA legislation in order not to fall completely outside or under animal procedures, amendments can be made to the legislation. That is a mature, sensible approach.
	If amendment No. 47 closed all potential gaps, I would recommend supporting it. I have already demonstrated that it does not even close its own potential gap because it does not cover diploid complementation, as just one example. The Minister said in an intervention that the specific example that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate cited was covered by the Bill, presumably because at the relevant point the entity would not be predominantly animalthe embryo would be human and the animal cells would form the non-embryonic part of the entity. It would therefore fall under subsection (6)(e).

Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing an intervention. An application to the HFEA for a licence would have to be made at the outset if it was believed that the human DNA would become predominant, so it would be covered. Whether that was predominant at the start or whether its development would lead to its becoming predominant, a licence from the HFEA would be needed before the process started.

Evan Harris: I leave that to stand. I would also say that if a scientist wanted to avoid a criminal charge, it would be wise to apply for a licence. Even if the scientist felt that the circumstance would not be covered by the definition, if it turned out to be covered, he would be liable under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, as amended, which contains stiff penalties.
	Although I have some sympathy with the broad point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, his amendment No. 47 is not comprehensive, it does not deal with the gap that it is intended to cover. I will not support amendment No. 47, but I hope the Minister will agree that ongoing work is needed in order to ensure that if gaps emerge, they can be covered. That is what the scientists want and, as I understand it, that is what the Department of Health seeks as well.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from previous days .
	On the motion relating to the Political Parties and Elections Bill (Carry-over), the Ayes were 285, the Noes were 216, so the motion was agreed to.
	On the motion relating to Competition, the Ayes were 424, the Noes were 64, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill  [Lords]

Question again proposed , That the amendment be made.

Sally Keeble: I had not intended to speak to this group of amendmentsI was going to speak to a later onebut having heard the comments in the debate, I thought it only fair to explain why I support the Bill as it stands. I do so as someone who has both written on the subject and had in vitro fertilisation treatmenthaving seen it from both sides of the equation.
	On the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), I completely agree with him that we do not know exactly where science will go, and that it is right to ensure that we do not have to keep coming back with primary legislation. He is right that we need to pass a Bill that is sufficient to deal with foreseeable developments in science.
	Looking through the Bill as it stands, and having listened to the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Minister, I believe that we need broad principles of legislation to underpin how different bits of research should be regarded. We also need a regulatory body able to interpret the legislation and take decisions about applications that come before it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to comment further on this later, but I believe that the Bill provides a framework that allows for the sort of experiments described by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate to be managed and properly regulated.
	I share the concern of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that a list of possible future developments might not be exhaustive. That might mean going back to see how the science has developed and providing legislation and regulations to cover the cracks. Our approach is right and I would expect the broad terms of the Bill to be sufficient to enable the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to regulate in the desired areas.
	I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) that there are problems about the provision of infertility treatment, but I believe that we have one of the finest regulatory systems in the world. The HFEA has steered us through some very difficult times, sometimes with inadequate legislative tools. I hope that the Bill will deal effectively with a lot of the chinks. My constituents certainly want proper provision made for the regulation of these activities on the basis of sound ethical principles, and I think that the Bill provides that.
	On the amendments to prohibit the mixing of gametes, I believe that they would be extremely damaging to the treatment of some forms of infertility. The Bill provides for the ability to mix gametes under licence. I would argue that the key issue is the mixing of gametes, not how the gametes come to be mixed. It is not about artificial insemination of an animal with human sperm; it is about the mixing of the gametes. That is the real issue and that covers mixing them by whatever form. If these amendments were accepted, it would make it harder to understand some of the processes involved in infertility and difficult to deal with certain forms of male infertility in particular.

Dari Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the fears expressed about ethics this afternoon stem from the fact that between 80 and 90 per cent. of the work done is done in privatewith all the dangers that could attach itself to that fact? That is what people are worried about. Much of the work is not done within the NHS. Fears about ethics arise and worries remain because, however good the regulation governing the work in the NHS, much of the work is done in private.

Sally Keeble: That is true, but I think that there are quite a few reasons why people are fearful about the process. One reason is that the idea of some creature that is part-human, part-animalthe example that is always givenis simply horrific. However, that is not on the cards, as the legislation clearly prevents it.
	There is also the fact that because, as my hon. Friend says, this whole area of medicine has developed in the private sector, people tend to focus on the more exotic aspects. In reality, straightforward IVF is now a fairly standard treatment, although a difficult one because of the ethics involved. That is where the bulk of the interest and the bulk of the provision lie, which is why IVF treatment on the NHS is so important.

Peter Bone: Does the hon. Member for Northampton, North agree that it is most unfortunate that Northamptonshire primary care trust does not provide more IVF treatment?

Sally Keeble: I entirely agree, although I believe that the PCT is now considering providing the three rounds of treatment, which is fantastic. All credit is due to that PCT.
	The third argument that underpins quite a few discussions here concerns the nature of embryos and the way in which we think of them. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) when he quoted from The Brothers Karamazov. In the section to which he referred, one of the characters undergoes a religious conversion and then talks about salvation through universal love. It is fine to have a religious view of embryos, and I am sure that many people have such a view, but what we are considering is a legal way of regulating experiments with embryos, and the legal status of embryos. That is different from having a religious view of them.
	Much of the discussion of abortion and termination concerns the way in which we regard the foetus at the later stages of development, the strong feelings that people have as a child moves towards viability, and the status and respect that we should accord to that child in law. In the context of embryo research, we are dealing with the same debate, but in relation to the very early stages of development. Passions run as high in relation to those early stages as they do in relation to the later stages, for very obvious reasons.
	The Bill sets out some good, straightforward provisions, under which the foetus starts to have a separate status at the time when the primeval streak develops. That is the point at which we should start to consider a different status for what was previously a cluster of cells. I want to say a little about that earlier stage as well. It is, I think, very easy to say This is a human being, but just in one or two cellsand, of course, that is exactly what people will see if the pregnancy is wanted and planned, and would lead to a much-loved child. However, those who have been through the process of IVF, as I have, will know perfectly well, because they have had to learn the hard way, that it is not really the case at all.
	People go through the process of wanting a baby, hoping for a baby, experiencing all the disasters, and then undergoing IVF treatment. On a screen in a private room they see a little blob, and someone says That is a baby or they see that it is a baby. Then the one blob becomes two blobs, and sometimes it becomes four, and then it disappears, because it was never going to come to anything anyway. It might have had some potential for life, but that was never going to develop. It was only going to be one or two or four cells; they were not differentiating, and nothing was ever going to happen. We must take that into account in considering such groups of cells and in deciding what should happen to them and the status they should be accorded in lawand therefore the way in which we should then be able to manipulate them for the good of improving the prospects of in vitro fertilisation, as well as for understanding a bit more about the science of life and what make us human, and for understanding a little more about some of the appalling diseases and conditions that affect human beings and thus finding cures for them.
	In talking about embryo researchabout how we should be able to manipulate embryos and for how long, and how the regulations should workwe must understand that the people engaged in this work will have the most profound respect for life and for the process of human gestation and birth. Securing improvements in both outcomes for people who suffer from infertility and need IVF treatment and the conditions of people with appalling diseases will come, in part, from making sure that we have good regulation that enables our scientists to manipulate, and experiment with, these cells at this very early stage. That is why it is important that we pass this Bill in its current form, so that we make sure that our scientists and regulators are equipped with the tools they need to improve our science, our understanding of human life and people's prospects.

Mark Durkan: My hon. Friend says that scientists and clinicians must be equipped with the tools they need. Surely the tools they need include clear, solid legislation, so amendments that identify loopholes in this proposed legislation should be addressed. That is part of the process of our providing them with the tools. They are getting all the tools that the Government want them to get; it is just that some of them are shoddy and not fit for purpose, and we are trying to make sure that they are precision tools designed to reflect the will of Parliament.

Sally Keeble: As I have said, I do not agree. I think that the provisions that are currently set down have clear principles and ethics. The period of time in which embryos can be experimented on is clear, as are the terms for that. It is also clear that we have a regulatory body that can

Mark Durkan: Is genetic modification clear?

Sally Keeble: I actually think that talking about GM in people is quite wicked, because it makes people think scientists are doing something that they are not doing. They are dealing with groups of cells at a very early stage. I have seen such groups of my own cells up on a screen, and I know that they will never come to anything and they are not at a stage where they are humanhowever much my hon. Friend might wish they were, they are not. What is important is that, with the right ethical principles, legal provisions and regulatory framework, it is possible for scientists to manage, experiment with and manipulate such cells within clear guidelines, so that they can improve the prospects for both the children who might be born through this process and the parents who will care for those childrenthere is very good provision on parenthood, which we probably will not have time to deal withand also enhance the well-being of many people who suffer from appalling diseases. I completely support the Bill, and I do not agree with the amendments.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: May I say at the outset that I appreciate the contributions that have been made by the hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), and by my colleagues the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)? I wish to support their comments and indicate that DUP Members will support amendments Nos. 41, 47, 49, 50 and 73 and new clause 24.
	I shall speak particularly to amendment No. 41. I ask the Government to see it as a positive contribution to the legislation, as are those suggested by the hon. Members whom I mentioned. They have sought to give the Government a basis on which they can tighten up some loopholes in the Bill. That is important, because if they are not tightened up, certain things will come back to haunt us.
	The Government have stated that they do not wish to allow human reproductive cloning, do not want genetically modified babies to be brought to birth and certainly do not want part-animal, part-human hybrids to be born. There are differences among hon. Members about whether we should permit scientists to produce such embryos. For some of us, that is already a step too far. Once an embryo exists, the problem is what to do with it or what to allow others to do with it. There would be no danger of someone implanting a genetically modified embryo into a woman if they did not have the embryo in the first place. Do we want this technology? Perhaps that is an issue for another day. The point is that we should not ask about the disposal of something only after we have decided to make it. We should weigh that up before we go ahead and create it.
	There are different views in the House and among the public at large about whether to allow the production of genetically modified, cloned and human admixed embryos. Nevertheless, I think that we all agree about implanting those embryos in a woman. The public is against that, and I believe that the House is too. Let me give credit where it is due: on admixed embryos the Bill is admirably clear, stating:
	No person shall place in a woman...a human admixed embryo.
	That is simple and straightforward, with no qualifications, no licences and no exceptions. The law will not permit a human admixed embryo to be put into a woman in any circumstances. I hope that we can agree about that.
	When it comes to cloned and genetically modified embryos, however, that admirable clarity is lacking. Instead there is an exception, which has created the loophole about which hon. Members have spoken. The Government should not be happy about that. Loopholes appear often enough after legislation has gone through the House, but it is hardly good practice to start with a loophole. Loopholes seldom get any smaller.
	I am not one of those who suspect some dark conspiracy, and I do not believe that the Government are secretly planning to approve a project to bring a cloned or genetically modified child to birth. I do not believe that that is their intention, but the loophole exists because of the idea that some people have of a possible future fertility treatment for women with mitochondrial disease. The Government have allowed the loophole in response to that possibility. Amendment No. 41 would close it without precluding possible future approaches to mitochondrial disease. It would allow what the Government want to allow but close a dangerous loophole, and everyone in the House should be able to support it, even though it originated on the Back Benches rather than with the Government.
	The amendment should not be controversial. It would cost the Government nothing and allow them to appear magnanimous. There is anxiety about some of the technology involved, and the greatest anxiety is about the idea that genetically modified, cloned or admixed embryos might be implanted and might develop into genetically modified, cloned or admixed children. The image that people have in their heads and that they find most abhorrent is of scientists producing GM babies, cloned adults or minotaurs.

Dari Taylor: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, Mr. Deputy Warden. SorryI meant Mr. Deputy Speaker.

George Howarth: It sometimes feels like a prison.

Dari Taylor: It does; my right hon. Friend is quite right.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that over the past 20 years, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authoritythe regulatory authority in questionhas controlled this complex and often fast-moving scientific area, ensured public confidence and become the envy of the world? Is he seriously saying to the House that it is prepared to throw that reputation away?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am one of those people who prefer not to have wardens, deputy wardens or authorities such as the one that she mentions to protect something that I consider very important, and which the law itself ought to protect. That is the point of the amendment; the situation should be clear in law. We should not allow this loophole to remain, and the House has an opportunity today to deal with it.
	If the Government wish to maintain public confidence, they should be clear about prohibiting those practices that the public most fear and which the Government have no intention of supporting. If they are not going to support them, let us make it clear in the law by closing this loophole to exclude such a practice.

Mark Durkan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The suggestion has just been made that we should rely on the HFEA jealously regarding and protecting its reputation. However, today we as a House have to guard the reputation of Parliament by doing our job and setting down fit, proper and competent laws. No one has yet been able to refute the fact that the loophole that has been identified does exist. Perhaps what we are considering is, as some Members have told us, an imperfect and incomplete attempt to close that loophole; nevertheless, it is an attempt, and it is Parliament's job to do that and to allow others to look after their reputations and jobs thereafter.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention and he is absolutely correct: it is our job to ensure that the law is as watertight as possible on this issue, and we should not be relying on some authority to do that for us. It is the job of Parliament, so I encourage the House to support amendment No. 41.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who makes a powerful point that I wish to reinforce in my short speech. It must be very frustrating for all the Members who want to speak to the next six groups of amendments that there is no time to discuss such important issues. That is the Government's fault entirely, and they should be ashamed of themselves. They could have allowed the House to sit through the night, so that everyone could have expressed their point of view on such an important matter. The Government's management of the House is quite appalling.
	I want to support amendment No. 49, in the name of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and amendment No. 41, in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Both amendments are concerned with proposed new section 3ZA(5) to the 1990 Act and are similar to amendment No. 46, to which I was a co-signatory but which was not selected.
	Today, the House is considering Government legislation that is going to repeal the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 and open a door for reproductive cloning to take place without the need for fresh primary legislation. Through subsections (2) to (4) of proposed new section 3ZA, the Government appear to place very tight restrictions on what type of embryos can be implanted in a woman. The problem arises, however, in proposed new section 3ZA(5)a loophole that can overturn these restrictions. If the procedure in question is undertaken to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease, the provisions of proposed new sections 3ZA(2) to 3ZA(4) need not apply, and regulations could allow reproductive cloning and other types of designer babies.
	In the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, the Government outlined their position against the controversial technology. Reproductive cloning uses somatic cell nuclear transfer to create animals that are genetically identical. It involves the transfer of a nucleus from a donor adult cell to an egg that has had its nucleus removed. The egg is then treated with either chemicals or electric current, and if it begins to divide normally, it is transferred into the uterus of the surrogate mother, where it will develop. A classic example of that process is Dolly the sheep.
	Under the proposed new legislation, that process could be allowed to create human clones. Regulations could allow a nucleus to be removed from an adult cell from a woman with mitochondrial disease and to be placed in a donor egg with healthy mitochondria, and from there a clone could be produced. In such a case, it would not have the healthy mitochondrial DNA from the second woman. That procedure, which would not involve fertilisation and would remove the need for a man, was suggested some time ago in a report in the  British Medical Journal as a potential way to treat mitochondrial disease. Under the Bill, the protection previously provided against this procedure by the 2001 Act would no longer be in place, as that Act is abolished by clause 3(6) and schedule 8.
	Although the Government have regularly stated that they do not intend to use the Bill to allow reproductive cloning, the repeal of the 2001 Act would pave the way for scientists to use reproductive cloning to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease. No matter what the Government intend, some scientists would, unfortunately, welcome legislation allowing reproductive cloning and would look to use it to allow them to experiment with human life further. That problem could be avoided simply by removing proposed new section 3ZA(5).
	The second issue that I wish to address is designer babies, one type of which is the multi-parent baby. To prevent mitochondrial diseases caused by faulty mitochondria from being passed to offspring, attempts are being made to make what the press have termed three-parent babies. What happens is either that a donor egg with healthy mitochondria with its nucleus removed is used to house the healthy nucleus from the egg with faulty mitochondria and this reconstructed egg is then fertilised by sperm through IVF, or that fertilisation occurs first, and is followed by nuclear transfer into an embryo with healthy mitochondria that has had its nucleus removed.
	Regulations under proposed new section 3ZA(5) could permit those embryos to be placed into the uterus and allowed to develop into a baby. That would be a three- parent baby, created using DNA from three people; it would involve DNA from the nucleus of one woman's egg, the DNA from the mitochondria of the donor woman's egg and nuclear DNA from the father's sperm.
	There is a third issue to address. As well as allowing three-parent babies and reproductive cloning, if the mitochondrial disease was caused by flaws in the nucleus, the loophole in proposed new section 3ZA(5) would also allow genetic engineering of nuclear DNA [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Far too much conversation is going on, and it is becoming intrusive. I would ask the House to listen to the remaining speeches in the debate.

Peter Bone: The genetic engineering that I was discussing could happen by the insertion of healthy nuclear genes into a one-celled embryo, the modification of the embryo and the creation of healthy embryos. In other words, one would be selecting genes, inserting them into the nuclear DNA of an embryo and thereby designing the embryo that one requires. That would not only be creating a designer baby; it would create a strong precedent for other types of designer baby in future. All those three controversial procedures are banned under proposed new section 3ZA(2) to (4), but 3ZA(5) and clause 3(6) override those restrictions.
	Baroness Royall has stated that
	the Government remain firmly committed to a ban on reproductive cloning.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2007; Vol. 696, c. 1513.]
	I do not doubt that, but the restriction should be included in primary legislation instead of relying on the word of the Government. The Department of Health itself accepts that the legislation contains a flaw that, in theory, makes it easier for the ban on reproductive cloning to be lifted.
	The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), the Liberal Democrat spokesman on science, was reported by Timesonline on 14 June as saying:
	It would be better, for the sake of consistency and reassurance, for the Bill to do what we all thought it would do, which is totally to ban human reproductive cloning in primary legislation.
	I heartily agree with him, and he reinforced that point earlier in the debate. It would have been easy for the Government to have amended the Bill and made a commitment to ban reproductive cloning. If the Government really oppose reproductive cloning, why the loophole?

Mark Durkan: I support amendments Nos. 49 and 50, tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), and Nos. 41 and 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). All the amendments in this group, including amendment No. 47, tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), and new clause 24, propose adding some words to the Bill to try to ensure that the law is clear and to reduce loopholes. None of them does any injury to what the Government and the supporters of the Bill say that they want the Bill to do. The amendments would not remove any of the provisions in the Bill. Those of us who had other views on those provisions lost that debate earlier this year. The amendments would address issues that are of concern not only for those who have reservations about this Bill, but, we were told, for those who support it.
	Lo and behold, the Government are resisting amendments that are simply trying to ensure that the legislation fulfils their intentionsor what they say are their intentions. I have listened to other hon. Members speak in support of the amendments. We have been told that what they said was rubbish, that none of it was ever going to happen and that the amendments are therefore not needed. However, I also heard the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon make the point that the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 was intended not to stop something that scientists intended to do, but to provide reassurance to the public. That is one role of legislation.
	Even if hon. Members think that some of the concerns that the amendments are trying to address will not be realised, they must accept that those concerns are real. They have been real enough for the Government to try to assure people, here and in the other place, that they will not materialise. Why should not legislation protect against any such possibility in the interpretation of regulations, either on the part of those who produce the regulations or those working under them? It is our job as primary legislators to ensure that those matters that should be covered in primary legislation are covered.

William Cash: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand what I am about to say. He is right in what he is saying, but I am concerned that we will not reach the incredibly important amendments on licensing, consent and parenthood. It is not his fault, and I commend what he is saying, but I ask most earnestly that he allows us the chance to get on to those groups. We have been denied time by the Government, and there are winding-up speeches to come, so I ask him to be good enough to remember that those other matters should be at least voted on by the House.

Mark Durkan: I fully respect what the hon. Gentleman has said. I shall not take long to deal with the amendments, as I shall not go through the detailed argument about the nature and reach of some of the loopholes. I am trying to deal with the arguments that have been made against the amendments, rather than getting into the substantive justification for them.
	We are told that the Government want to ensure that there is not any reproductive cloning. In so far as clause 3 ensures that the new provisions will supersede the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, is it wrong for the House to ensure that in superseding those provisions we ensure that there is no room for genetically modified children to be created? That is entirely reasonable. We are told that that is not the intention and that nobody wants to do it, so what is wrong with ensuring that such an action is clearly provided against in the Bill?
	As for the various other amendments that have been tabled, we have been told that safeguards are already in place and that they are what is intended, and we have been absolutely reassured that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will pay full regard to and stand by certain standards. What is wrong with ensuring that those safeguards and standards are in the Bill as a way of reinforcing the confidence that we are asked to have in the HFEA?

John Mason: I hasten to say that I speak in a personal capacity and not on behalf of my party, which has a free vote on these issues.
	I rise to give my support to amendment No. 41, which is the only amendment before us today that would clearly ban human reproductive cloning. I think the issue deserves the fullest consideration by the House, although time is limited.
	Let me state the obvious: the Scots are not clones of the English. Someone who is free makes their own decisions, while someone who is a slave has decisions made for them. Someone who is free makes their own future, while someone who is a slave is given a future and a set of expectations. Children sometimes live in the shadow of their parents but they must move out of that shadow and become themselves. Each child and each generation is always new, a particular mix never seen before. A child is never made to a pre-set designunless, of course, the child is a clone.
	A clone lives always in the shadow of the original. A clone is always a copy of or a replacement for someone else. What kind of start in life is it to be defined by the expectations of others from the start and to be thought of as a copy from the start? Of course, a cloned child would not really be a copy, as they would have their own wishes and aspirations, but they would start off as a copy. To make a clone is to make a child to be a copy, a slave to our expectations, and a commodity. We know what they will be like. If a clone of Margaret Thatcher were made, we would know what to expect, as we have seen it before.
	I am sure that hon. Members know that Scotland has no desire to be isolated from the rest of the world. The people of Scotland want to take their place with the rest of the world. So when the United Nations declares that
	practices which are contrary to human dignity such as reproductive cloning of human beings shall not be permitted,
	we welcome that. It is an expression of our common humanity. Whatever our nation or culture, there is one entrance into life and a common departure. We are all born and we will all die and there are some things we can say together.
	Not everything that can be done should be done, and it is important for us as nations within the United Kingdom and as nations within the world community to draw strong lines in the sand to express what we have in common: our humanity, the basis of our human dignity and human rights. The United Kingdom has not yet ratified the Council of Europe convention on human rights and biomedicine, and Scotland is unable to ratify it. I suppose that it is thought to be too complicated for us. It has an additional protocol on the prohibition of cloning human beings that is clear and to the point:
	Any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead, is prohibited.
	That is something that I think that we should ratify. We should make common cause in Europe and say that we will not clone a child.
	In 2001, there was a big debate in the House on the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill, which was narrow and tightly drawntoo much so for some hon. Members. It prevented the implanting of a cloned embryo in a woman, but it did not prohibit scientists from making cloned embryos or from taking them abroad, or from implanting in an animal or an artificial womb. However, the Bill at least assured people that no cloned baby would be born in the UK. It fulfilled a manifesto promise to outlaw reproductive cloning.
	The Minister who introduced the Bill said that it
	encapsulates the views of the vast majority of British people who find the possibility of human reproductive cloning abhorrent.[ Official Report, 29 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 1169.]
	But now, less than 10 years later, that tight, narrow Bill, that statutory ban and clear bulwark against a slippery slope, is being repealed by clause 3 of this Bill.
	I know that the rest of the wording of clause 3 is meant to achieve the same ban, and I am sure that is what the Minister will say, but it is widely acknowledged that provision 3ZA(5) removes that absolute ban in the pursuit of hopes of treatment for mitochondrial disease. That is why we must support amendment No. 41.
	A ban announced with great fanfare is being shelved as quietly as possible, without consultation or public debate. The promise that was once made seems to be turning into an empty promise. How can we trust the law that is being proposed? How can we trust this Government? Less than 10 years ago, we were promised a statutory ban on reproductive cloning, but now we find excuses, exceptions and an erosion of trust.
	Elsewhere in the Bill is the creation of part-animal, part-human embryoshybrid embryos. They would be created, we were told, purely for necessary medical research, and would never be implanted into a woman or an animal. We were told that there was no chance that any Government would allow such a creature to be born. The idea that a part-animal, part-human could ever be born has been called pure scaremongering and yet, less than 10 years ago, the very same things were said about cloning children. We were told that that would never happen and that there was a clear, tight law to which there could be no exceptionsbut now the exceptions are beginning, and cloning a child is one huge step forward.
	The Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 was brought in because people in this country and across the world regarded human cloning as an affront to human dignity. They considered it to be unfair to the child and to compromise the relationships of parent and child.

William Cash: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has not been in the House for very long, but some of us hope to move on to two other groups of amendments. All hon. Members would like to speak for a considerable time, but will he be kind enough to take into consideration the fact that the other groups of amendments deal with hugely important questions of informed consent and parenthood? The House ought to have an opportunity to be able to divide on those issues.

John Mason: I totally accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The debate has been compressed into the impossibly short time of half a day, but those are the rules that we are playing to and I am the first person in my party to speak in the debate. However, I do accept his point and I will try to cut out some of my speech.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman is new in the House, so may I give him some advice? He should take no advice on brevity or cutting his speech from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

John Mason: I appreciate that supportive comment, and I think that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was repeating himself when he made that intervention.
	A House of Lords Select Committee report on stem cell research was clear on the case against human cloning, stating that the high risk of abnormalities rendered the scientific objections to human reproductive cloning overwhelming. I shall omit some of what I was going to say, but the Committee set out other strong ethical objections, and stated that it
	unreservedly endorses the legislative prohibition on reproductive cloning now contained in the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001.
	The Government have already lost the trust of the people of this country on the economy, crime and other things. The danger is not just that people will lose trust in the Government, but that they will lose trust in scientists and the regulation of science. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) seemed to put great faith in the scientific community, but others have put great faith in the banking community and that was found to be misplaced.
	If, instead of a clear and simple ban, the public are given subtle exceptions, they will see that their safeguard has been taken awaythat there is no longer any line that stands between us and full reproductive cloning. They will think, and they will be right, that we are legalising reproductive cloning.
	When the United Kingdom found itself in a minority in the UN on cloning, the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), complained bitterly:
	It is a shame that the UN could not agree to a legally binding worldwide ban on reproductive cloning, simply because a small group of countries intransigently refused.
	We lectured the world on how marvellous our law was and how important it was to have a legally binding ban, and yet the same Government are about to overturn our own ban on cloning, with not so much as a public debate.
	This little exception will put a hole in the dam; it will breach the defence. If one exception is made, who in this House believes that it will be the last exception, or that things will remain there? If we make this exception, we repeal the Act and suddenly the line is crossed, and if this line is crossed there are no other lines. If we pass this law there will be clones. If we pass this law we will be even more isolated from the common humanity of the rest of the world. If we want to stop something happening, we must have a law against it, a clear law, a straightforward law that people can understandno exceptions, no thin end of the wedge, no foot in the door. We need to keep the clear law that says we will not go therewe want to help parents but we will not sacrifice children. We will not make children to order; we will not make children to a pre-existing blueprint. We will not have clones.
	To conclude, we value democracy, we value independence not because we will always make a better job of itthough we think we willbut because they are our decisions. G.K. Chesterton said that democracy was like tying one's own shoe laces; it is part maturitymaturity of an individual, maturity of a nation.
	I commend to this House and especially to Labour Back Benchers that they defy the Whip, for the sake of the country, for the maintenance of trust in science and for the sake of the people. I say, Do not go back to your constituents and explain why you voted to allow reproductive cloning; go back and say why you upheld the ban. Please support amendment No. 41.

John Hayes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason), particularly as he quoted Chesterton, who is too rarely quoted in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke about the godly extension of love having a worldwide effect. Chesterton said:
	Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.
	This debate, on these amendments, has obliged the House to consider how we define human life and how we regard humanity, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, East said.
	Surely humanity means that we regard other human life as we regard our own. Such is the ethics of humanity. So it is our shared humanity that distinguishes us from animals; that determines how we should behave to one another; and determines especially that we should not deliberately distort the lives, or expedite the deaths, of fellow humans, whether those fellow human beings are born or unborn. There has been too little debate in this House about that definition of human life in relation to the Bill, too little clarity about the nature of human life, as my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) and for Gainsborough identified.
	It seems to me that the expectation of living human beings and the unbornthose incapable of conscious choiceis the same because of their shared humanity, and that is the prevailing view that should underpin our considerations of this Bill and these amendments to it. Each person is bound to respect the humanity of others, as they are bound to respect their own humanity. But humanity, or that view of it, is under great threat.
	The work of Peter Singer, a moral philosopher who is now at Princeton, is most important, in contextual terms. For Singer, the ethics of humanity is objectionable because it amounts to what he calls speciesism. We have heard a great deal about the blend of animal materials and human cellular materials. Of course, if one does not believe the orthodox view of how to define humanity, and if one defines it around the idea of personhood, when personhood itself is defined by the ability to exercise autonomy and choice, it becomes entirely permissible to manipulate human cellular material in the way the Bill will allow.
	It is not self-consciousness, capacity for reason or autonomy that make us human, but something altogether more fundamental. All that the amendments would do is introduce greater clarity. Of course science matters, and of course scientific research is important, but, frankly, morals matter more. We should not define human cellular material in such speciesist terms. We should certainly not abandon our orthodox assumptions about those things that bind us together, born or unborn.
	A great Jewish theologian said:
	A religious man is a person who holds God and man in one thought...at all times...Whose greatest passion is compassion...Whose greatest strength is love and defiance of despair.
	The Bill marks the malign abandonment of those values. By confusing or avoiding the definition of what is, or what is not, human, and by blurring the fundamental and profound ethical divide between ourselves and animals, it does immense damage to our humanity. It will do little for the reputation of the House among a wider public who will be bemused that we can consider some of the things that the Bill will make permissible and some of the things that will result from its extension.
	The winding-up speeches are about to begin, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by repeating that science matters, but morals matter more.

Mark Simmonds: The House will be delighted to hear that I will savagely reduce and synthesise my remarks to give the Minister as much time as possible to respond to our important debate. However, first I must say that the debate has demonstrated that the programme order is a disgrace and a misuse of parliamentary procedure, given that many significant amendments that should have been considered have been completely negated.
	The Minister needs to clarify whether the insertion of the word cytoplasm, as proposed in amendment No. 49, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), would introduce an additional safeguard against the manipulation of nuclear DNA. The right hon. Lady also needs to reaffirm the commitment that she made in Committee that future regulations would not be introduced to extend mitochondrial manipulation to the nucleus and that that could be achieved only by primary legislation. I assure the House that when Conservative Members are in government, we will not allow human reproductive cloning by regulation.
	The Minister needs to explain in detail how the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001, which bans reproductive cloning, is replicated in the Bill. Why does clause 3(6) use the word superseded? If it is correct that there are loopholes in the Bill, as we have been told, the Bill does not supersede the 2001 Act.
	It is thought that amendment No. 41, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), should prohibit future Governments from permitting reproductive cloning. We have heard the Government's reassurances that they would never pass regulations to permit thata Conservative Government would not do sobut if a form of wording could be included in the Bill to ensure that that could never happen, the Government should work to find it. It is not acceptable to leave that to regulation.
	Clearly, one of the challenges in the Bill concerns the balance between primary legislation and regulation. One of the reasons why the Bill is before us today is that medical technology has advanced. The Bill is partly about updating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The onus is on the Minister and the Government to show that amendment No. 41 is harmful. It has been cleverly drafted so as not to interfere with mitochondrial donation techniques. It would prevent the legalisation of only those techniques that there is a strong public and international consensus against.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made a passionate, interesting, detailed speech that demonstrated key, fundamental understanding of the issues. He highlighted a potentialI use the word advisedlyloophole relating to the technological advances in question. Of course, there cannot be an exhaustive list. There was a great debate in the other place about that. However, the Minister needs to understand, and to clarify today, the interaction between the Bill, the 1990 Act that the Bill amends, and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. She needs to say which piece of legislation will be responsible for which licence, and whether one is more permissive than another. If it is, she must say whether the Government will consider tightening the relevant licensing procedures.
	Again, amendment No. 50 and new clause 24 were tabled by the hon. Member for Southport. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) was absolutely right to say that the Bill prohibits admixed embryos being placed in an animal. If there were a total ban, however, it would clearly affect mitochondrial technological advancements, and I am in favour of those advancements. Members need to understand that mixing human and animal gametes has taken place for some considerable time. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made the point clearly that there have been significant advances in infertility research because of what has been called the hamster test. Hon. Members need to be very careful about trying to ban and prohibit any mixture of animal and human gametes.

John Pugh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Simmonds: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I want to give the Minister time to respond. Common themes have emerged today. First, it is clearly the view of many Members, on all sides of the debate, that there are potential loopholes that may need to be closed. Secondly, it is vital to get the balance between primary legislation and regulation correct. I suspect that the Minister will have to address that clearly. The key element that we must not lose sight of as we discuss this part of the Bill is the fact that the special status of the embryo must be put above everything else. That must not be lost in our debate.

Dawn Primarolo: I start by saying clearlyI will return to this point, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) asked me tothat the Bill sets out a clear prohibition on human reproductive cloning and the genetic modification of gametes or embryos that are to be used for treatment purposes. It does that through the provisions set out in clause 3. At the end of my comments on the amendments, I will return to the subject to lay that out clearly.
	Amendments Nos. 41, 49 and 73 seek to restrict the provisions in the Bill that aim to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial diseases. Research is currently being carried out, under a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority licence, on ways to avoid those devastating diseases. To remind ourselves, we are talking about dementia, respiratory problems, gastro-intestinal disorders, stroke and brain atrophy. In recognition of the severity of those conditions and the potential for such research to provide effective treatment, the Bill provides, through a regulation-making power, for eggs or embryos that have had applied to them a specific process enabling them to avoid serious mitochondrial diseases to be considered permitted. They can therefore be used in treatment. The particular process and the circumstances in which that would be appropriate would be detailed in regulation. I take the caution given by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) about acknowledging the sensitivities and difficulties in that area.
	The safety of using the techniques has not yet been established. They would need to be assessed carefully before being deployed as options for patients in treatment. The regulating power would allow for that consideration through a full consultation, to gather the views of the public, ethicists and relevant stakeholders on the appropriate use of using donor eggs for that purpose. For example, as some hon. Members have pointed out today, and as has been raised in the House before, there would need to be consideration about the status of the egg donor if donations from which only the mitochondria is used were made.
	In addition to the public consultation, we believe that Parliament should not be asked to decide on this issue now, for precisely the reasons that have been mentioned: the facts should be before Parliament before it makes a decision. It should be asked to take the decision only when all the facts are clearly available.
	Amendment No. 41 seeks to limit the regulating powers so that embryos or eggs that have undergone cell nuclear replacement could not be permitted for use in treatment. Following debate in another place and in this House, the Government carefully considered the drafting of proposed new section 3ZA of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and whether it needed to be amended.
	After careful consideration, the Government's view is that the drafting is clear and does not require amendment. The precise process by which mitochondrial diseases may be treated is not yet clear, and amendment to the regulating powers would inadvertently risk and reduce the scope and the process for treatments to be allowed. Secondly, the regulation-making power is limited to the treatment of mitochondrial diseases only. Thirdly, the regulations would be subject to considerable public consultation and then to debate in Parliament. That would enable all the concerns to be raised. In taking that forward, the Government are balancing the need to have the facts before taking decisions with the recognition that the power is about helping couples conceive a child that is genetically theirs, but without the fatally flawed mitochondria that affect the maternal line. That is the balance that we are trying to strike; we have left things open for further consideration. That is why we are proceeding as we are.

David Drew: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but does she understand the concerns that some of us have? We are being asked to trust the Government, and, more particularly, to think that any future regulation, over which we would have no control through primary legislation, will be fit for purpose. In the context of these issues, that is quite a leap of faith.

Dawn Primarolo: I am asking my hon. Friend to think about being involved in the consultation, participating in the public debate and improving the draft regulations if and when they come forward. He should then fully participate in an affirmative resolution debate in the House before the regulations are passed. I am asking hon. Members to thinkand that is a reasonable thing to do.
	Amendment No. 49 seeks to limit the regulating power so that only embryos or eggs that have been subjected to processes to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial diseases through cytoplasm could be permitted for use in the treatment. I absolutely understand and appreciate the intention behind it. I have to say, however, that the amendment is ambiguousa point that has been touched on in the debate. Everything in a cell could be considered to be cytoplasm, including the mitochondria and the nucleus, and restricting regulating powers to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial diseases via the cytoplasm would not necessarily achieve the aim of excluding transmission via the cell's nucleus. For that reason, there was no need to put the amendment before the House.
	There are other more appropriate ways in which mitochondrial disease transmitted via a cell's nucleus could be treated. We are looking specifically, through pre-implantation, at genetic diagnosis of the embryo. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) will accept that we are attempting to strike the right balance, while leaving open the final decisions until the information is available and this House has taken a final view, following consultation.
	Amendment No. 73 would prevent any research from being undertaken in the UK the purpose of which is to develop techniques of germ-line genetic modification. It would have the effect of prohibiting research projects from being licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority where the purpose of the research was to develop techniques for the genetic modification of human embryos. In addition, the amendment would restrict the regulation-making power to prevent the research. We are not aware of any researcher who would want to undertake such research, particularly in the light of the international agreements in place to prevent such activities from being applied for reproductive purposes. The Bill clearly sets out a prohibition on the reproductive application of such practices, and any research licensed by the HFEA would also need to satisfy the criteria that the use of embryos was necessary for the research, and that the research was necessary or desirable.
	Amendment No. 50 and new clause 24 would introduce a regulating power that requires the Secretary of State to make it an offence to place human gametes in an animal. The Bill does not change the legal position achieved by the 1990 Act, which made no prohibition on the artificial insemination of an animal with human sperm. Such a prohibition was believed unnecessary at the time because of the inability for humans and animals to produce offspring successfully. Equally, the 1990 Act legislated on the creation of human embryos in vitro and on reproductive services. The subject matter was very different from that of the artificial insemination of animals. Since 1990, our knowledge of the ability of humans and animals to procreate has not changed, and there is still no published evidence to suggest that any insemination of an animal with human sperm, whether as part of a scientific study or not, has resulted in pregnancy. Members touched on the regulations that exist and support the legislation in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Government believe that the combination of the existing legislation in this area is sufficient, and we are not aware of any developments that require revision of that position.
	Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 relate to the regulation-making powers in the Bill to extend and alter its definition of embryo, eggs, sperm, gametes and human admixed embryos. They provide that those powers can be used by the Secretary of State only on condition that they are necessary and desirable. It is important that hon. Members understand exactly how that would interact with the rest of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 47 has been substantially debated this afternoon with regard to a definition of human admixed embryos that include a catch-all category. That category refers to an embryo containing both human and animal DNA in which the DNA of the animal does not predominate. In other words, those embryos are more human than animal. I touched on the conditions under which a licence would have to be sought in an earlier intervention.
	Amendment No. 47 refers to embryos containing human and animal cells created by a process of tetraploid complementation. In the type of embryo created by the process to which the amendment refers, the cells of an early animal embryo are altered, so that they contain twice the usual complement of DNA. Such cells are destined to give rise to only extra-embryonic tissue. When placed with those altered animal cells, human cells would give rise to the embryo proper, because the animal cells are capable of forming only extra-embryonic cells. The implantation of the embryo created in that way is therefore prohibited by the Bill.
	Amendment No. 47 seeks to add a further category to the existing categories. Hon. Members have talked about their fear of a loophole that needs to be closed. In looking at the range of issues that have been raised, the Government believe that the embryo created by the process that I have described should be considered as a human admixed embryo, which is regulated under the definition in proposed new section 4A(6)(e) of the 1990 Act, so there is no loophole.
	In conclusion, let me return to the point about cloning. The Government are absolutely clear that we are committed to banning human reproductive cloning, and the Bill continues to provide for that.

Jim Devine: Will my right hon. Friend place it on record that the Bill has nothing to do with Stalinist or Nazi tests, which is what we heard from the Opposition earlier?

Dawn Primarolo: Hon. Members know that the Bill is about helping the one in seven couples who need assistance with their fertility. It is about research to deal with the dreadful diseases and the debilitating attacks on their health from which many in our society suffer. The Bill is about combining science with an ethical framework that works on behalf of humankind, and I think that the House knows that.
	The provisions of the Bill continue to prohibit reproductive cloning and retain the existing penalty of up to 10 years in prison for anyone attempting reproductive cloning. I say this to all hon. Members, whatever their fears: please be reassured that the penalty is there. The prohibition continues. The Bill contains specific powers to allow the House to return, when the information is there and the consultation has been completed, in order to be clear about whether we would permit any further expansion in that area of research.
	We have had a long and extremely important debate. Much of the ground has been covered in previous debates. It is always important to clarify the Government's intentions. Every Member of the House has a free vote tonight. I urge them to support the Bill and to reject the amendments, as the best way forward to ensure that science prevails in an ethical framework that is acceptable to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 299.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being after Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	 Amendment proposed: No. 41, page 3, line 26 , at end insert
	'(5A) Regulations made under subsection (5) may not provide for an egg or embryo whose nuclear genetic material has been altered by genetic modification, or whose nucleus has been replaced by the nucleus of a somatic cell, to be a permitted egg or a permitted embryo.
	(5B) In this section, genetic modification includes the alteration of the nuclear genetic material of an egg or embryo by
	(a) recombinant nucleic acid techniques which change the DNA sequence of nuclear chromosomes of the egg or one or more cells of the embryo, or
	(b) the introduction into the egg or into one or more cells of the embryo of a stably-maintained artificial chromosome, virus or plasmid.'. [Mr. Drew.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4
	  
	Prohibitions in connection with genetic material not of human origin

Amendment made: No. 4, page 4, line 8, leave out 'the keeping or using of' and insert 'keeping or using'. [Dawn Primarolo.]
	 Amendment proposed: No. 47, page 4, line 37, at end insert
	'(f) an embryo created by combining pluripotent or totipotent human cells with animal embryonic cells in which the latter have been altered so as to contain double the number of chromosomes, or in which the animal cells have been otherwise altered to become largely or entirely extra-embryonic tissue.'. [Mr. Burrowes.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 306.

Question accordingly negatived.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just witnessed an unbelievable disgrace to Parliament in the way in which this matter has been handled by the Government through the programme motion. I wish to put on record the fact that vulnerable people and others with mental incapacity will not be allowed to have their views put properly across in the debate. It is a complete disgrace that we have been treated in this way by the Government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a matter for the Chair.
	 Amendment made: No. 5, page 5, line 3, after 'but', insert '(except in subsection (9))'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 14
	  
	Conditions of licences for treatment

Amendments made: No. 6, page 9, line 35, leave out 'being treated' and insert 'mentioned in subsection (6A)'.
	No. 7, page 9, line 38, leave out 'to be treated' and insert 'mentioned in subsection (6A)'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 29
	  
	Offences under the 1990 Act

Amendments made: No. 75, page 33, line 6, at end insert
	'( ) In subsection (7), for section 10(2)(a) substitute section 19B(3)(a) or 20B(3)(e).'.
	No. 76, page 33, line 11, leave out '(7) or'.
	No. 77, page 33, line 42 , leave out ', (6) and (7)' and insert 'and (6)'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 30
	  
	Regulations under the 1990 Act

Amendment made: No. 8, page 34, line 35, at end insert
	'section 20A(3);
	section 20B(2)'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 37
	  
	The agreed fatherhood conditions

Amendment made: No. 9, page 37, line 42, at end insert
	'( ) A notice under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) by a person (S) who is unable to sign because of illness, injury or physical disability is to be taken to comply with the requirement of subsection (2) as to signature if it is signed at the direction of S, in the presence of S and in the presence of at least one witness who attests the signature.'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 43
	  
	Treatment provided to woman who agrees that second woman to be parent

Amendment made: No. 10, page 40, line 31, leave out 'she' and insert 'W'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 44
	  
	the agreed female parenthood conditions

Amendment made: No. 11, page 41, line 23, at end insert
	'( ) A notice under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) by a person (S) who is unable to sign because of illness, injury or physical disability is to be taken to comply with the requirement of subsection (2) as to signature if it is signed at the direction of S, in the presence of S and in the presence of at least one witness who attests the signature.'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 46
	  
	Embryo transferred after death of civil partner or intended female parent

Amendment made: No. 12, page 41, line 42, leave out 'the woman' and insert 'W'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 50
	  
	Meaning of references to parties to a civil partnership

Amendment made: No. 13, page 44, line 26, leave out third 'the' and insert 'any'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 55
	  
	Parental orders: supplementary provision

Amendment made: No. 14, page 48, line 17, leave out 'relating to' and insert 'about'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 59
	  
	Surrogacy arrangements

Amendments made: No. 15, page 49, line 34, after first 'any', insert 'reasonable'.
	No. 16, page 49, line 37, after 'any', insert 'reasonable'.
	No. 17, page 50, line 1, after first 'any', insert 'reasonable'.
	No. 18, page 50, line 3, after 'any', insert 'reasonable'.
	No. 19, page 50, line 5, at end insert
	'(2C) Any reference in subsection (2A) or (2B) to a reasonable payment in respect of the doing of an act by a non-profit making body is a reference to a payment not exceeding the body's costs reasonably attributable to the doing of the act.'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 64
	  
	Power to make consequential and transitional provision etc.

Amendment made: No. 20, page 51, line 42, at end insert
	'( ) An order under this section which modifies an enactment in consequence of any provision of Part 2 may modify subsection (5) of section 53 (interpretation of references to father etc.).'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Clause 68
	  
	Commencement

Amendment proposed: No. 50, page 53, line 19, at end insert
	'(2A) This section shall be subject to section  (prohibition on placing human gametes into an animal).'.[Dr. Pugh.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 308.

Question accordingly negatived.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could appeal to you as the guardian of the reputation of this House of Commons. I completely understand that you can make no comment about the contents or quality of a Bill, but this Bill is of enormous, far-reaching importance. Parenting is in its title but there has been no opportunity to debate that. We are not going to have a Third Reading to discuss any of it as it leaves this House. People up and down this land will just not understand that. Would you be prepared, Sir, to discuss this with the Procedure Committee, so that never again does a Bill of this major importance go through without a proper Third Reading?

Mr. Speaker: The House has decided. These decisions have been made by the House. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is best that he goes to the Procedure Committee and raises the matter with it, because if I take the matter up, it may appear as though I am giving some steer or guidance to the Committee, and I should be neutral in these matters.

Schedule 3
	  
	Consent to use or storage of gametes, embryos or human admixed embryos etc.

Amendments made: No. 21, page 60, line 32, leave out 'a' and insert 'any'.
	No. 22, page 73, leave out lines 36 to 46 and insert
	'(4) Condition B is that'.
	No. 23, page 73, line 47, leave out from '(P)' to end of line 48 and insert
	'is dead or the person responsible under the licence (R) believes on reasonable grounds that P is dead'.
	No. 24, page 74, line 1, leave out 'the person responsible under the licence (R)' and insert 'R'.
	No. 25, page 74, line 7, after 'died', insert '(or is believed to have died)'.
	No. 26, page 74, line 10, at end insert
	'(4A) Condition C is that
	(a) the person responsible under the licence (R) has taken all reasonable steps to contact
	(i) the person falling within sub-paragraph (1)(b) (P), or
	(ii) in a case where P is dead or R believes on reasonable grounds that P is dead, persons who could give consent for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(c),
	but has been unable to do so, and
	(b) the information relating to P that is available to R does not suggest that P would have objected to the use of P's human cells to bring about the creation in vitro of an embryo or human admixed embryo for use for the purposes of the project.'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Schedule 6
	  
	Amendments relating to parenthood in cases involving assisted reproduction

Amendments made: No. 27, page 85, line 15, leave out 'that person' and insert 'the woman concerned'.
	No. 28, page 87, line 36, after 'of', insert 'the formation of'.
	No. 29, page 88, line 9, after 'time', insert 'of the formation'.
	No. 30, page 95, line 17, leave out from third 'the' to 'shall' in line 19 and insert
	'woman concerned (in which case the woman concerned'.
	No. 31, page 95, line 23, leave out 'person' and insert 'woman concerned'.
	No. 32, page 96, line 16, leave out second 'a' and insert 'the'.
	No. 33, page 99, line 21, after 'of', insert 'the formation of'.
	No. 34, page 99, line 37, after 'time', insert 'of the formation'.
	No. 35, page 107, line 9, after 'domiciled', insert 'immediately'. [Dawn Primarolo.]

Schedule 8
	  
	Repeals and revocations

Amendments made: No. 78, page 114, line 13, column 2, leave out ', (6) and (7)' and insert 'and (6)'.
	No. 79, page 114, line 14, column 2, leave out '(7) or'. [Dawn Primarolo.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It has been a long journey to Third Reading, but a shared one, involving two years of scrutiny and discussion.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: The process was demanding because we were invited to consider issues that strike at the heart of what it means to be human. We have also looked

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has indicated that she is not going to give way.

Dawn Primarolo: We have looked at how to make regulation more inclusive and more reflective of 21st century society and family structures, including by covering the rights of same-sex couples.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No. I am trying to make some brief comments

William Cash: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady has indicated on several occasions that she is not giving way, so the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) should calm himself, sit down and listen to the Minister.

Dawn Primarolo: None of the decisions were taken lightly. Indeed, precisely because of the Bill's controversial nature, because it involved such profound social and ethical issues, and because it was always going to provoke very different views, we depended more than ever on the guidance and scrutiny of those in this House and outside it.

William Cash: May I try once more; will the Minister give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should try once more because he is beginning to defy the Chair, and that is not a good idea.

Dawn Primarolo: The Government have listened carefully to views about what should be allowed, what should be prescribed and what controls should exist. I believe that we have arrived at the right balance of controlling but not constraining scientific research, with protection from a Brave New World scenario in which science overrides ethics, and avoidance of the extremes of scientific process being blocked by red tape, stifled by regulation, or frustrated by a regime that fails to keep pace with social change. We have taken great pains to future-proof the Bill as much as possible and to address intricate dilemmas now so that clear legislation and regulation may be in place for the future when medical research is not proven.
	The kaleidoscope of science is coming to a rest. Careful consideration has been given to the Bill in this House and another place, and the new consensus has been captured. If science leads the field and challenges our basic beliefs and ethics

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that careful consideration had been given to all the ingredients of the Bill. She mentioned the other place, but surely it is obvious that such consideration has not been given in this place.

Mr. Speaker: I have enough difficulty looking after this place without commenting on the other place.

Dawn Primarolo: When science throws our views and ethics into flux, legislation brings regulation and stability. The House has struck a new consensus of allowing science to stretch its wings and develop, but constraining it within what the House considers to be ethically acceptable. The US physician, Richard Cabot, said that science and ethics need to shake hands. The Bill brokers that handshake. It represents a good deal for science and society, and I commend it to the House.

Mark Simmonds: The Bill is of great significance. It has tried to strike a balanceto allow scientific advancement while being based on an ethical platform. It is a shame in some ways that it has had this unfortunate end. Clearly, there are many dissatisfied Members in the House, and that is primarily due to the programme motion, which has not allowed important amendments and issues to be debated. Conservative Members had a free vote on the Bill, and in my view there should have been far more free votes for Government Members, too. We are talking about significant ethical and moral issues, and Members should be allowed to vote with their conscience.
	However, the Minister and the Government have listened to some of the suggestions made, for example on licences for therapy, on consent issues relating to pre-existing cell lines, on regulations on the appeal procedures and on changes to surrogacy laws. There have been constructive debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) and for Salisbury (Robert Key) for making constructive contributions as the Bill passed through the House.
	It is important to understand that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990an extremely robust piece of legislationretains much of its significance and value because it was thoroughly debated in this House and in the other place. It was originally the Minister's hope, and it is my hope, that this Bill will be similarly enduring. However, after today's performance, I have to question whether it will be. I hope that the shape of the ethical and regulatory framework for reproductive science and medicine will hold for many years to come. The Bill is built on a moral and ethical regulatory framework that will allow Britain to remain at the forefront of scientific and medical innovation while, importantly, still protecting the special status of the embryo.

Norman Lamb: It is unfortunate that the Bill has ended its time in the House in this way. The way in which the Government manipulated the programme motion is outrageous; it denied people on both sides of the debate the opportunity to raise issues of real and profound concern. At the beginning of Report, the Minister argued that it was important not to deal with abortion because we needed time for all the other issues in the Bill. Of course, we have not had time to deal with all the other issues because debate has been so greatly constrained by the Government.
	Despite all that, this is a very important Bill. We Liberal Democrats have had free votes throughout its stages, and will have a free vote on Third Reading, but speaking personally, I welcome the Bill as it stands. I support the way in which it has moved through the House, and its shape now as it moves to the other place. This country has led the way in shaping the ethical framework within which science operates. The Conservative party started the process in 1990, when it was in government. The Bill brings the legislation up to date on the advances of scientific endeavour, and that is the right way to proceed.
	As I say, the Liberal Democrats will have a free vote; however, my party's policy is to be pro-science and pro-research, but in favour of an ethical framework for science, subject to proper limits and safeguards. I shall certainly support the Bill on Third Reading.

Andrew Selous: I want to know what, in years to come, Members of the House are supposed to say to children who look at us and say, Why have you denied me the opportunity to have a relationship with my natural father or mother? That should be the birthright of every child in this country. It is a deeply sad moment when the House denies that possibility to children who may wish to have that opportunity in years to come. I am deeply saddened that we have not had a proper debate, and that there has not been a chance for every Member to go through one or other Division Lobby, on the issue.

Kevin Barron: I should briefly like to support the Bill on Third Reading. It is another breakthrough piece of legislation, following on from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. All of us should think that one day, future generations will thank us legislators for having made good legislation, backed with regulations that will ensure that many diseases from which people suffer will, in years to come, be a thing of the past.

William Cash: Professor Jones of St. Mary's university college sums it up by saying that there is no doubt that if one overarching principle of contemporary medical ethics still trumps all others, it is personal autonomy. We have been denied the opportunity to debate the question of consent in the context of licensing, and it is deeply regrettable
	 It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker,  put  the Question pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 355, Noes 129.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed , with amendments .

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Committees),

Cross-Border Healthcare

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 11327/08 and Addendum 1, Commission Communication, a Community framework on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare and No. 11307/08 and Addenda 1 to 3, draft Directive on the application of patients' rights in cross-border healthcare; agrees with the Government on the desirability of EU legislation to clarify the operation of cross-border healthcare to provide certainty for patients; and supports the Government's belief that the UK should continue to pro-actively engage in this area in order to achieve the maximum influence over the shape of the debate and final Directive. [Ms  Diana R.  Johnson.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Care Services (Somerset)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The petition states:
	The Petition of the residents of Bridgwater and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about cuts to funding by Government which have resulted in Homes in Sedgemoor, and other housing organisations, reviewing the arrangements in their warden-controlled accommodation so that wardens will no longer be resident on site, and the implications that this has for elderly residents and others who have made arrangements to be in warden-controlled accommodation as part of their long-term future care.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review and reconsider funding arrangements to local authorities so that funds are available to allow the continued employment of resident wardens to assist elderly residents in retaining a degree of independence and the peace of mind a warden on site brings them.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000277]

Planning and Development (Exmoor)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The petition states:
	The Petition of residents in the vicinity of Exmoor National Park and others,
	Declares that the authorities of Exmoor National Park wish to demolish Blackpits Bungalow, a perfectly habitable three bedroom home, built for local working people, together with the out-buildings, roadside fences, and banks; and further declares that the purchase of the bungalow (for 238,000) and the demolition of the property, do not represent good use of public funds.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to prevent the demolition of Blackpits Bungalow.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000276]

Criminal Convictions

Bob Spink: SAFARI, which stands for Supporting All Falsely Accused with Reference Information, is an organisation that fights for people who have been falsely accused and seeks to make convictions safer. Some may think that the British judicial system is perfect. I do not subscribe to that view, so I am pleased to put questions to the Government and I thank those involved in trying to make the system safer.
	The petition, which supports an electronic petition of 224 signatures, states:
	The Petition of Phil Faber and others,
	Declares that too many people are wrongly convicted because the law allows too much weight to be given to the word of one or more people, without other more tangible evidence to support the conviction; believes it is wrong that the jury only have to be persuaded that the defendant is guilty, and that this leaves the system open to abuse and puts people at risk of being convicted because someone has lied to the court or is innocently wrong in their assertions, and the person who tells the lie and secures the conviction can then claim compensation from the Criminal Injury Compensation Board.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that people are not normally convicted when the only evidence is the word of one or more persons.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000278]

War Memorials (Essex)

Bob Spink: I have a second petition to present. We are lucky in Castle Point to have a superb Royal British Legion club with excellent members who play a leading role in defending our community, as they did when they were in the services. War memorials belong to the community, not to councillors, and changing them is best done with the consent and approval of all the stakeholders and the public. The petitioners seek to hold councillors to account for their actions, which are felt to be rather high-handed, in making changes to our war memorial without public consultation.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of the War Memorial Fund Raising Committee, members of the Royal British Legion and residents of Canvey Island,
	Declares that Castle Point Council has acted without proper consultation to propose changes to the War Memorial at the Paddocks on Canvey Island; believes that councillors should not take such action without proper consultation and agreement with the stakeholders and wider community and that the overwhelming view of stakeholders and residents is that it should remain at its current site.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make Castle Point Borough Councillors aware of this petition and of the very deeply and widely held view that Councillors should consult before taking any action to disturb the War Memorial.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000279]

British Nuclear Test Veterans

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Roy.]

John Baron: Not many people have witnessed a British nuclear explosion, but those who have will be following this debate closely, for I intend to ask the Minister whether the Government will repay a debt of honour to surviving veterans of our nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s.
	The issue is not new. Successive Governments have been aware of the facts for quite a while, but I am raising the matter again because a number of new factors have come into play. The first is that there has been new scientific evidence from Dr. Al Rowland in New Zealand to suggest that veterans have suffered as a result of their exposure to radiation. Secondly, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and I held a cross-party inquiry last year which raised new facts and disclosures. Meanwhile, other countries are moving well ahead of us in recognising their veterans. Here in Britain we lag shamefully behind. The Government even appear to be backtracking on a promise to replicate the New Zealand study on our veterans.
	The history to the debate needs to be understood. Between 15,000 and 20,000 servicemen took part in Britain's nuclear tests, which included Operation Grapple on Malden Island and Christmas Island in 1957-58. Other tests took place at Monte Bello islands, Maralinga, and Emu field. It is thought that only about 3,000 veterans are alive today. Many of those involved believe they were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation that resulted in their own ill health and that of their descendents.
	Veterans and their families seeking redress in the form of a war pension encounter a frustrating tribunal system that is both inconsistent and subject to delays. For many years, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association or BNTVA has campaigned for recognition for its 800 or so surviving veteran members, and many more widows and offspring, but successive Governments have used a controversial series of reports by the National Radiological Protection Board or NRPB to insist that no harm was done.
	It was against that backdrop that research from New Zealand last year threw light on a possible link between participation in the tests and possible genetic changes in veterans. The hon. Member for Norwich, North and I therefore believed that the time was right to hold a cross-party inquiry to look at this question again. We took evidence over two days from scientists and veterans, but the Ministry of Defence declined to contribute. Our inquiry heard clear personal testimony that makes us question whether adequate radiological safety standards were followed for the tests. For one thing, there is a concern that some veterans were simply too close to the epicentre of the blast. Witnesses described their experiences of a heat wave of extraordinary intensity, leading in some cases to temporary blindness or a sensation of blood boiling within their bodies. Others developed skin rashes and flu-like symptoms immediately after the detonations. My constituent Mr. Eric Everard says:
	The whole of my back was a blister afterwards. There was no protective clothing; we didn't go in bunkers or anything. We just stood on the beach.
	There were many similar stories of men being mustered on to beaches or on the decks of ships to witness the explosions and many suffering afterwards.
	In our inquiry, we also saw little evidence that fallout and the dangers from ingested radioactive particles were taken seriously after the tests. Servicemen were free to move around the island, drinking local water, eating local fruits, bathing in the lagoons and breathing in dust, all of which could have been contaminated. That is worrying, because ingested radioactive particles from fallout can remain in the body and continue to harm for many years.
	As I have suggested, successive GovernmentsI hope that the Minister realises that this is not a party political issuehave used the NRPB series of reports to argue that test veterans have not experienced poor health, but endless concerns have been raised about those reports, which have never commanded the respect of veteran groups. I do not intend to go into the issues now, as time is not on our side, but I suggest to the Minister that the key point is that NRPB reports go only so far. They are studies of cancer mortalityin other words, counting cancer deathsthat tell us nothing about the underlying genetic changes in veterans or other ill health among them or their descendants. That is why our inquiry took such a close interest in the Al Rowland study from New Zealand and the Chris Busby survey undertaken through the BNTVA.
	The study of the genetic status of New Zealand veterans, which was carried out by Dr. Al Rowland and his team at Massey university, showed a very high frequency of translocations in the chromosomes of veterans as compared with a carefully matched control group. Dr. Rowland certainly believes that the probable cause is exposure to radiation, which can be attributed to participation in Operation Grapple. The report concluded:
	We would encourage those in authority to initiate research to
	confirm
	our findings by conducting a similar study on British and Fijian personnel who also took part in Operation Grapple.
	That call was wholeheartedly endorsed by our inquiry last year. We believe that funding should be made available by the Ministry of Defence for a new independent research team to replicate the Rowland study in this country.
	After I raised the issue at Prime Minister's questions, the hon. Member for Norwich, North and I had a meeting with the Prime Minister and then with the Minister's predecessor in February this year. It was our clear and distinct impression from that meeting that the Rowland study would be replicated here by the British Government if it was peer-reviewed. Yet despite its being peer-reviewed in a respectable scientific journal, the Government seem now to be prevaricating. A letter from the Minister's predecessor dated 23 August stated that the Government would be
	carefully considering comments from the scientific community before making any decision.

Ian Gibson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his tenacity and acknowledge how enjoyable it has been working on the survey with him.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the scientists who came to our inquiry had some ideas about conducting it along the right lines in order to get an answer one way or the other. It certainly was my understanding when we talked to the previous Minister that that was going to happen. I would like publicly to congratulate Al Rowland, whom I met at Massey. He gave me the data relating to his work; it has opened up a hornet's nest that cannot be denied in further research.

John Baron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I have already put on record my thanks to him for being a co-party in our inquiry, and in the efforts that we have made so far. I am pleased to hear his confirmation that it was our understanding that an Al Rowland-type study would be undertaken if it was peer-reviewed, which it has now been. I hope that the new Minister will tell us whether the Government intend to keep the promise made at our meeting.
	The Busby report is important for a similar reason. It examines the legacy of nuclear testing for subsequent and future generations. The results of a questionnaire study of BNTVA members and their offspring conducted last year suggest much higher levels of miscarriage, still birth, infant mortality and congenital illness in veterans' children, both in a national context and in the context of control children.
	Some of the experiences revealed by the study are quite distressing. Among veterans the number of miscarriages was 105, compared with 18 in the control group. The rate of still births was 26 per 1,000 births, compared with 10 in the control group. The rate of congenital defects among veterans' children was almost 10 times that among other children. The defects included cataracts at birth, deformed spines, muscle wasting, deafness, excess and missing teeth, and holes in the stomach and heart. My constituent Mr. Eric Everard certainly believes that the effects of the radiation to which he was exposed were passed on to his son Darran, who died of a genetic connective tissue disease when he was only 22 years old. Such reports are not unusual among veterans. Dr. Busby concluded:
	It is clear that the veterans received significant genetic damage as a result of their period near the test sites.
	The findings of that research echoed the earlier findings of Dr. Sue Rabbitt Roth of Dundee university, which I understand was peer-reviewed in 1999a fact overlooked by the Government.
	That snapshot is deeply worrying, and suggests a sinister genetic legacy for future generations. I would go as far as to suggest that there is a ticking time bomb of ill health that the Government need to recognise. The Minister must not underestimate the real anger that exists outside this place about Government inaction. To help future generations, we need to understand the scope of the problem. That is why I believe that Dr. Busby's study should be replicated rigorously, and the Government should provide the funds.
	The final recommendation of our inquiry report concerned pension appeal tribunals, which provide the mechanism for veterans or their widows to appeal against the more or less automatic decision not to award a war pension. The system is complex and long-winded and judgment is often inconsistent, with precedent not being applied from one hearing to the next. Veterans with almost identical experiences and conditions receive different outcomes. Our inquiry therefore called for a complete overhaul of the system, perhaps even removing nuclear test veterans from the war pensions process altogether because they are such a unique group. I suggest that the Minister and representatives of the Ministry of Defence should sit down with the veterans and sort the problem outa process that will require political courage and leadership.
	Let me deliver a final thought to the Minister. We are not dealing with this issue in isolation, and we are already being left hopelessly far behind other nations in honouring our debt of gratitude to veterans. The Isle of Man Government will pay compensation in the region of 8,000 to each of the estimated eight Manx veterans involved in the tests, the New Zealand Government have already provided money for the Al Rowlands experiments and scientific tests, and the Canadian Government have offered to settle with their test veterans. In the United States, atomic veterans are eligible for presumptive compensation based on 21 identified cancers. A person who has one of those cancers and was involved in the tests will receive compensation automatically.
	The contrast between the different approaches is well illustrated by the case of Mr. Roy Prescott, whose son wrote to me during our inquiry. He was one of 500 British servicemen who, having served on Christmas Island, were loaned to the United States for further tests on the island in the early 1960s. Mr. Prescott later became ill and applied for a British war pension, but that was turned down. He then applied to the United States compensation programme, was accepted and received a substantial one-off payment. We therefore see the absurdity of other countries compensating our own veterans because we have failed to do so.
	The Ministry of Defence has been cagey and resistant for too long. We owe a duty of care to our test veterans. The Minister is new in his position and I ask him to commit to a fresh appraisal regarding our debt of gratitude. This is not a party political issue. My early-day motion 156 attracted signatures from Members in all parts of the House. I therefore ask the Minister some very simple questions. Will he now replicate the Rowland study on British veterans? What further study is he prepared to carry out on the descendents of veteransa matter that could be with us for many years to come? Will he sit down with veterans and address the question of tribunals and compensation, and do it now?
	These veterans just want justice for themselves and their descendents. They served their country. What they now expect is their country to be honest with them. While any solution is likely to be characterised as much by political compromise as by scientific rigour, this is, without doubt, a political problem. Time is now short, and I suggest to the new Minister that the best should not be the enemy of the good.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to the work done by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I know about the tremendous work they contributed to the inquiry of last year.
	I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I wish to begin by putting it on the record that the Ministry of Defence recognises the debt of gratitude we have to the servicemen who took part in these nuclear tests. They were important tests that helped to keep this nation secure at a difficult time in terms of nuclear technology. The hon. Gentleman rightly noted that if harm has been caused to these individuals and the Ministry of Defence and this nation are responsible, they should be offered redress. However, I think he would agree with me that any claim for compensation should be evidence-based. Evidence should be brought forward and determined on an individual basis.
	I also think we can agree that there is no doubt about the sincerity of the veterans; I would not question for one minute their testimony or that of their families. It is important that we do not question or criticise them in any way. The vital issue, however, is whether we can link the conditions that some individuals and families have with those individuals having been present at the nuclear tests. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, previous Governments as well as this Government have looked at the evidence and have come to the conclusion that no link between conditions and presence at the tests has been demonstrated.
	The hon. Gentleman's report conceded that current scientific evidence does not generally support the view that there has been an increased risk of ill health or death among the test participants. Even though Dr. Rowland's recent study indicates that genetic damage was present among the small cohort of individuals that he examined, it did not go on to draw any link between the genetic abnormalities found in the chromosomes and any conditions such as cancers. That report has been held up as an important piece of research, but it does not help to move forward the argument for drawing that link between damage to chromosomes and conditions such as cancers that developed later.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would give a commitment to replicate the Rowland study. He mentioned a meeting. I was not present, so I have asked my officials what was said. They have told me that it is quite clear that no clear commitment was given. I have examined the study in detail since I found that the debate was coming up, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be very difficult to replicate in the case of the individuals whom we are discussing. I am not sure what such a study would add to the debate if it led to the same conclusions that Rowland came to.

John Baron: Nevertheless, it is an important piece of the jigsaw. The clear recollection from our meeting with the Minister's predecessor is that a promise was given on condition that the study was peer-reviewed. It now has been, and we hope that the Government will reconsider their position. I am not expecting an answer now, but all I ask is for the Minister to think about it.

Kevan Jones: I shall certainly address that point and return to the matter of the peer review at a later date. When my predecessor met the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, he stated clearly that the Department would examine the Rowland research and take expert advice on it, and that has been done.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned other countries' payments to their nuclear test veterans. What is unique in this country is that consecutive Governments have accepted that people who can prove that exposure to radiation caused them harm can apply for the war pensions scheme. That is not the case in other countries, so to say that we have done nothing is a little harsh on the current and previous Governments. I add that the burden of proof in the war pensions scheme is generous.
	The hon. Gentleman complained about inconsistency in the cases involving the war pensions scheme. I accept that people have felt that, but they do have the right to go to a pensions appeal tribunal and ultimately, on a point of law, to the social security commissioners. I used to deal with tribunals and I accept that inconsistencies can appear to happen, but individual cases have to be considered on an individual basis. The Department has examined some of the cases involved and has not found inconsistencies, but if the hon. Gentleman or the nuclear test veterans want specific cases to be examined, I am quite prepared to ask the Ministry of Justice to do so. It is important to get credibility. A separate system would be difficult, and it would not lead to the payments that many of the individuals who come forward currently get.
	The other route of access to justice is common law, and the hon. Gentleman will know that 1,000 nuclear test veterans have taken group litigation. The Ministry of Defence served a summary defence on 21 January, and a preliminary trial on the issue of limitation is due to commence on 19 January next year. It has been reported in the media that the matter of limitation is simply a technicality, but that is not the case. It is important that the matter is examined from a legal point of view, especially given that many of the key witnesses are no longer alive and that the evidence of others needs testing because of age or infirmity. I do not want to say a great deal more about that, because it is right that we let the legal process take its due course.
	The hon. Gentleman made some emotive points about the offspring of test veterans. I accept that it is not easy for the families that have disabled children and that they find some of the responses that politicians give difficult to take. We need to examine the matter, but to say that there has been no research is wrong. I am told that good-quality research has been done on Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, examining ill health among children born to survivors. That needs to be taken into account.
	I genuinely do understand the British nuclear test veterans' concern about this issue, on which they have placed a great deal of importance. At a recent meeting with my predecessor, they expressed the view that they wanted this issue to be looked at, putting more weight on doing that than on carrying out a Rowland mark 2 type study. I have listened carefully and looked at the files in the short time that I have been in the Ministry, and I think it is important to get experts to look in detail at what has already been done and what can be done.
	This is not a simple task, and this afternoon I perhaps upset some of my officials by being a bit impatient in trying to get instant answers. The logistics will prove difficult because of the passage of time, loss of data and other such issues. However, my predecessor said he would meet representatives of the group in the autumn, and I am determined to move this agenda forwards. I make an offer tonight to meet the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and representatives of British nuclear test veterans next week, so that we can discuss the possibility of taking forward a study on health experiences and issues associated with veterans' offspring. Once that meeting has taken place, I propose to ask officials to discuss with the experts the best way to design and develop a possible research programme. It is important that this study and the terms of reference for it are correct, and that we are not asking people to do the impossible. That is a commitment that I give today.

Ian Gibson: I welcome my hon. Friend's very positive attitude towards helping in his early days in office. One of the logistical problems that we came up against was finding out where vets were, which is why it is very important that he has invited them along, because they may be able to help in finding out where all those folks live now, so that we can get decent numbers. It will be difficult, but I really do welcome my hon. Friend's positive approach. Perhaps we will get to the bottom of this once and for all.

Kevan Jones: I am very grateful for that, and it is important that we meet next week to see what input the nuclear test veterans can have into the process. That could help, and I am quite prepared to listen to what they have to say. Once officials have met and experts have come together to design and develop a research programme, I will make an announcement, before Christmas.

John Baron: I sense that the Minister is about to conclude, so may I, too, put on the record my thanks for his positive response? He has decided to try to move this issue forward, certainly with regard to descendants, which I very much welcome. I look forward to that meeting next week, and I know that the BNTVA will also be looking forward to it. We should not forget that it has a database of at least 800 surviving veterans, which can help with that process. I want also to thank the Minister for his promise to sit down with the veterans and look at inconsistencies in the tribunal process, and to explore whether any progress can be made where inconsistencies have occurred. Those are two positive steps that we did not necessarily have months ago.

Kevan Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I hope to make an announcement before Christmas on the way forward. It will not answer all the issues raised in his inquiry, but I am determined to see whether we can at least get some movement and give some comfort, although I accept that the report might not come to any great conclusion. At least we are going to move the process on, which will give the sense to nuclear test veterans that they are being listened to.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

Political Parties and Elections Bill (Carry-over)

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Political Parties and Elections Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.
	 The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Competition

That the Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2008 (S.I., 2008, No. 2645), dated 6th October, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th October, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 424, Noes 64.

Question accordingly agreed to.